Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts On Grammaticalization

ASSIDUE
Arbeitspapiere des Seminars fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Erfurt
Nr. 9
Thoughts on grammaticalization
Second, revised edition
Christian Lehmann
July 2002
ISSN 1612-0612
Erfurt Seminar fr Sprachwissenschaft

der Universitt
Impressum:
Arbeitspapiere des Seminars fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Erfurt
Seminar fr Sprachwissenschaft
Philosophische Fakultt
Universitt
D - 99105 Erfurt
Herausgeber:
Prof. Dr. Christian Lehmann
bei den Autoren
ISSN 1612-0612
THOUGHTS
ON
GRAMMATICALIZATION
Christian Lehmann
Second, revised edition
2002
iii
Contents
Prospect of volume II v
Tables vi
Figures vi
Preface to the draft version vii
Preface to the published edition ix
1. The history of research in grammaticalization 1
2. Grammaticalization: 8
2.1. The term grammaticalization 8
2.2. The meaning of grammaticalization 10
2.3. Degrammaticalization 14
2.4. Renovation and innovation 17
2.5. Reinforcement 20
3. Grammatical domains 22
3.1. Verbal complexes 22
3.1.1. Existence and possession 22
3.1.2. The copula 23
3.1.3. Modals and moods 24
3.1.4. Tense and aspect 25
3.1.5. Passive and emphasis 28
3.1.6. Auxiliaries and alternative sources 29
3.2. Pronominal elements 33
3.2.1. Definite pronominal elements 33
3.2.1.1. Definite determiners 34
3.2.1.2. Personal pronouns 34
3.2.1.3. Reflexive pronouns 37
3.2.2. Indefinite pronominal elements 44
3.2.2.1. Interrogative pronouns 44
3.2.2.2. Indefinite pronouns 44
3.2.2.3. Negative indefinites 47
3.2.2.4. Conclusion 50
iv
3.3. Nominal complexes 50

3.3.1. Nominal categories 50
3.3.1.1. Number 50
3.3.1.2. Numeral classifiers 53
3.3.2. Nominalization 54
3.3.3. Attribution 61
3.4. Clause level relations 66
3.4.1. Adverbial relations 66
3.4.1.1. Adverbial relators 66
3.4.1.2. Relational nouns 67
3.4.1.3. From adposition to case affix 70
3.4.1.4. Adverbs 77
3.4.1.5. Renovations and reinforcements 84
3.4.1.6. Preverbs 86
3.4.1.7. Coverbs 92
3.4.2. Main actant relations 95
3.4.2.1. Terminology 95
3.4.2.2. Grammatical cases 97
3.4.2.3. From functional sentence perspective to syntax 100
3.5. Conclusion 107
4. Parameters of grammaticalization 108

4.1. Theoretical prerequisites 108
4.2. Paradigmatic parameters 112
4.2.1. Integrity 112
4.2.2. Paradigmaticity 118
4.2.3. Paradigmatic variability 123
4.3. Syntagmatic parameters 128
4.3.1. Structural scope 128
4.3.2. Bondedness 131
4.3.3. Syntagmatic variability 140
4.4. Interaction of parameters 143
4.4.1. Quantifiability of the parameters 143
4.4.2. Correlation among the parameters 146
4.4.3. Lack of correlation 150
4.4.4. Reduction to zero and fixation of word order 153
Indices 160
Abbreviations 160
Language abbvreviations 160
Grammatical categories in interlinear morphemic translations 160
Bibliographical references 162
v
Prospect of volume II
5. Processes cognate to grammaticalization
5.1. Semantic processes
5.2. Lexicalization
5.3. Phonological processes
5.4. Analogy
6. Traditional problems in new perspective

6.1. Grammatical meaning
6.2. Grammatical levels
6.3. Markedness
6.4. Arbitrariness of the linguistic sign
6.5. Semantic representation
7. Comparison of languages
7.1. Contrastive linguistics
7.2. Language typology
7.3. Language universals
8. Language history and linguistic evolution

8.1. Development of grammatical categories
8.2. Linguistic evolution
8.3. Historical reconstruction
9. Language theory
9.1. Language activity
9.2. The causes of grammaticalization
vi
Tables
T1. Greenlandic case paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
T2. Development of case suffixes in Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
T3. Mangarayi case paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
T4. The parameters of grammaticalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
T5. Tense/aspect periphrases in Portuguese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
T6. Correlation of grammaticalization parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Figures
F1. The phases of grammaticalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
F2. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of verbal categories . . . . . . . 32
F3. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of pronominal elements . . . . 49
F4. Structure of complex adpositional phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
F5. Structure of expanded adverbial phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
F6. Grammaticalization of coverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
F7. Evolution of adverbial relators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
F8. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
F9. From discourse functions to syntactic functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
F10. Scale of grammatical boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
F11. Structure of numeral classifier phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
F12. Reduction to zero and fixation of word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Preface vii
Preface to the draft version

As we will be going a long way, through involved and ramified discussions, until we
arrive at something like a definition of grammaticalization, the reader who wants to
know beforehand what this book is all about is asked to accept this as a preliminary
characterization: Grammaticalization is a process leading from lexemes to grammatical
formatives. A number of semantic, syntactic and phonological processes interact in the
grammaticalization of morphemes and of whole constructions. A sign is grammaticalized
to the extent that it is devoid of concrete lexical meaning and takes part in obligatory
grammatical rules. A simple example is the development of the Latin preposition ad at,
towards into the Spanish direct object marker a.
It must be made clear at the outset that this treatment is preliminary, incomplete and
imperfect. It presents little more than what has been found out in the two centuries in
which the subject has been studied, and probably it contains even less than that, because
I have been unable to take notice of all the relevant literature. I must also warn the reader
that I have great conceptual difficulties with the present subject, and I will leave many
questions open. The problem is not so much an empirical one: there are sufficient
analyzed data, and the empirical phenomena in themselves appear to be reasonably clear.
What is highly unclear is how the phenomena are to be interpreted, classified and related
to each other. Grammaticalization is such a pervasive process and therefore such a
comprehensive notion that it is often difficult to say what does not fall under it. The
present essay will therefore be concerned, first and foremost, with the question: what is
grammaticalization?
The discussion will not be couched in terms of a specific theory of grammar, one reason
being that existing grammatical models are inadequate for the representation of the
gradual nature which is essential to the phenomena comprised by grammaticalization. As
many of the problems involved are traditional ones, they can be discussed in traditional
terms.
The theory of language which is to account for the systematicity, goal-directedness and
dynamism inherent to grammaticalization must be structural, functional and operational
in nature. It is essentially the theory of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1836), which has been
elaborated in more recent times by Eugenio Coseriu (1974) and Hansjakob Seiler (1978).
This theory has never been made fully explicit; but it will become transparent through all
of the present treatment, and an attempt to make it more explicit will be presented in the
last chapter.
The work is organized as follows. We start, in ch. 1, with a brief historical review of the
relevant literature. Ch. 2 will supply some first clarifications to the concept of
grammaticalization and will delimit it against related concepts. Ch. 3 contains the bulk
of the empirical data which illustrate grammaticalization, ordered according to
Preface viii
semantically defined domains of grammar. From this evidence, the various basic
processes which integrate grammaticalization and which are called its parameters are
then extracted and ordered according to how they pertain to the paradigmatic or the
syntagmatic aspect, to the content or the expression of the grammaticalized sign. The
degree to which these parameters correlate will also be discussed in ch. 4. The next
chapter looks out for analogs to grammaticalization in different parts of the language
system and tries to distinguish these from grammaticalization proper. In ch. 6 we turn to
a couple of traditional linguistic problems, asking whether the concept of
grammaticalization can contribute anything towards their clarification. The various
modes of contrasting different languages, including language typology and universals
research, are discussed in the perspective of grammaticalization in ch. 7. Ch. 8
concentrates on the diachronic aspect of grammaticalization, its role in language change
and historical reconstruction. The final chapter tries to formulate the advances that may
be made in language theory if grammaticalization is given its proper place in it.
Due to idiosyncrasies in the timing of my research projects, I have had to interrupt the
writing of this book after ch. 4. It was decided that the finished chapters should appear
as volume I, while chapters 5 - 9 should be reserved for a second volume. I have
included them in the preceding sketch and also given a prospect on their contents in
order that the reader may get an idea of the plan of the complete work. It is my intention
to complete volume II for akup in 1983.
A cordial word of thanks goes to Bernd Heine and Mechthild Reh, who have been
working on grammaticalization and evolutive typology, especially in African languages,
simultaneously and partly in cooperation with me. They have been kind and disinterested
enough to put their notes and manuscripts at my disposal. References are to this
prepublication version; their work is now being published as akup 47. Finally, I should
like to thank Sonja Schlgel and Ingrid Hoyer, who have taken great care in typing and
editing the manuscript.
Cologne, 7.10.1982 Christian Lehmann

Preface ix
Preface to the published edition

A preliminary version of the present work was distributed in 1982 under the following
title: Thoughts on grammaticalization. A programmatic sketch. Vol. I. Kln: Institut fr
Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt (Arbeiten des Klner Universalienprojekts, 48). It
got out of stock immediately, but has been in high demand since. A slightly revised
version was released in January 1985, but only in form of a number of xerocopies. The
original plan was, of course, to get back to work on grammaticalization as soon as
possible, to write up volume II and then publish the whole work. Then the title, too,
would have been streamlined a bit. However, I never got around to do that.
The semipublished 1982 paper has played an instrumental role in the development of
modern work on grammaticalization. Many people have asked me to at least make it
available in published form, even if I should never manage to round it off. This is what
I am doing here. Consequently, this publication is slightly anachronistic. I have removed
those errors of the preliminary version that I got aware of. I have modified many points
of detail. I have updated references to unpublished material. But I have not taken into
consideration the vast amount of literature on grammaticalization that has appeared since
(including my own more recent contributions) and that would lead me to reformulate
substantially some of the ideas expounded here. Readers should be aware that the state
of research reflected here is essentially that of 1982.
References to volume II, including even the Prospect of contents of volume II, have not
been deleted. A fair appreciation of what is being published here is only possible if one
considers that it was always intended to be only half of what would, at least, be
necessary. However, I doubt that volume II will ever be published. Below, I list the
articles on grammaticalization that I have published since 1982. Some of them may be
considered to fill the lacunae created by the prospect. In particular, the following
assignments may be allowed:
Ch. 5.2: 1989[G], 2002.
Ch. 6.3: 1989[M].
Ch. 7.2: 1985[r], 1986.
Ch. 8: 1985[G], 1987, 1992.
Ch. 9: 1993, 1995.
I have been unable to get my English grammar and style revised by a native speaker, and
I must apologize for the inconveniences resulting therefrom. Finally, cordial thanks go
to Cornelia Snner for the effort she has made in editing the typescript. I also thank the
numerous colleagues who have reacted to the preliminary version and whose comments
would deserve fuller attention.
Bielefeld, 21.07.1995 Christian Lehmann

Preface x
For the second edition, some changes and corrections have been made.
Erfurt, 08.07.2002 Christian Lehmann
References
Aguado, Miquel & Lehmann, Christian 1989, Zur Grammatikalisierung der Klitika im
Katalanischen. Raible, Wolfgang (ed.) 1989, Romanistik, Sprachtypologie und
Universalienforschung. Beitrge zum Freiburger Romanistentag 1987. Tbingen:
G. Narr (TBL, 332); 151-162.
Lehmann, Christian 1985, Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic
change. Lingua e Stile 20:303-318.
Lehmann, Christian 1985, The role of grammaticalization in linguistic typology.
Seiler, Hansjakob & Brettschneider, Gunter (eds.), Language invariants and
mental operations. International interdisciplinary conference held at Gummers-
bach/Cologne, Germany, Sept. 18-23, 1983. Tbingen: G. Narr (LUS, 5); 41-52.
Lehmann, Christian 1986, Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. General
Linguistics 26:3-23.
Lehmann, Christian 1987, Sprachwandel und Typologie. Boretzky, Norbert et al.
(eds.), Beitrge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium ber Sprachwandel und seine bestim-
menden Faktoren, vom 30.9. - 2.10.1987 [sic; i.e. 1986] an der Universitt Essen.
Bochum: N. Brockmeyer (Bochum-Essener Beitrge zur Sprachwandelforschung,
4); 201-225.
Lehmann, Christian 1989, Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift fr
Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:11-19.
Lehmann, Christian 1989, Markedness and grammaticalization. Tomi, Olga M. (ed.),
Markedness in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
(Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 39); 175-190.
Lehmann, Christian 1991, Grammaticalization and related changes in contemporary
German. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to
grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (Typological
Studies in Language, 19); II:493-535.
Lehmann, Christian 1992, Word order change by grammaticalization. Gerritsen,
Marinel & Stein, Dieter (eds.) 1992, Internal and external factors in syntactic
change. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, 61);
395-416.
Lehmann, Christian 1993, Theoretical implications of processes of grammaticaliza-
tion. Foley, William A. (ed.) 1993, The role of theory in language description.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, 69); 315-340.
Lehmann, Christian 1995, Synsemantika. Jacobs, Joachim et al. (eds.), Syntax. Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung. Berlin: W. de Gruyter
(Handbcher der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9/2); II:1251-1266.
Preface xi
Lehmann, Christian 2002, "New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization."

Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (TSL, 49); 1-18.
1. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH IN GRAMMATICALIZATION
As far as I can see, it was Antoine Meillet (1912) who coined the term gram-
maticalization and first applied it to the concept for which it is still used today. We will
return to him in a moment. The concept itself, however, and the ideas behind it, are
considerably older. The idea that grammatical formatives evolve from lexemes, that
affixes come from free forms, was already expounded by the French philosopher tienne
Bonnot de Condillac. In his work Essai sur l'origine des connaissances humaines (1746),
he explained the personal endings of the verb through agglutination of personal pronouns
and maintained that verbal tense came from the coalescence of a temporal adverb with
the stem. Again, John Horne Tooke, in his etymological work }+B," BJ,D`,<J" or
the diversions of Purley (vol. I: 1786, vol. II: 1805), claimed that prepositions derive
from nouns or verbs.1 We shall see in ch. 3 that all such processes do, in fact, occur,
though not necessarily in the specific cases which these authors had in mind.
Condillac and Horne Tooke were certainly only forerunners to the first evolutive
typologists, notably August Wilhelm von Schlegel and Wilhelm von Humboldt. In his
Observations sur la langue et la littrature provenales (1818), Schlegel deals
extensively with the renewal of Latin synthetic morphology by Romance analytic
morphology. About the formation of the latter, he writes:
C'est une invention en quelque faon ngative, que celle qui a produit les
grammaires analytiques, et la mthode uniformment suivie cet gard peut
se rduire un seul principe. On dpouille certains mots de leur nergie
significative, on ne leur laisse qu'une valeur nominale, pour leur donner un
cours plus gnral et les faire entrer dans la partie lmentaire de la langue.
Ces mots deviennent une espce de papier-monnaie destin faciliter la
circulation. (28)
This is followed by a series of Latin-Romance examples of different kinds, including the
development of articles, auxiliaries and indefinite pronouns, which have subsequently
become the stock examples of grammaticalization theory. Although Schlegel goes so far
as to speak of la formation d'une nouvelle grammaire (30), he views the development
essentially as due to linguistic decadence. It will be observed, however, that some of the
core aspects of grammaticalization, viz. semantic depletion and expansion of
distribution, are foreshadowed here.
Wilhelm von Humboldt arrived at more far-reaching conclusions. In his academic lecture
on the origins of grammatical forms, he proposed that grammatische Bezeichnung (the
signifying of grammatical categories, as opposed to objects) evolves through the
following four stages (1822:54f):
1
Information on Condillac and Horne Tooke from Arens 1969:109f, 132-134, and
Stammerjohann (ed.) 1975:119, 452f.
I. grammatische Bezeichnung durch Redensarten, Phrasen, Stze:

grammatical categories are completely hidden in the lexemes and in the
semantosyntactic configurations.
II. grammatische Bezeichnung durch feste Wortstellungen und zwischen
Sach- und Formbedeutung schwankende Wrter.
III. grammatische Bezeichnung durch Analoga von Formen: here the
vacillating words have been agglutinated as affixes to the main
words. The resulting complexes are not forms, unitary wholes, but
only aggregates, and therefore mere analogs to forms.
IV. grammatische Bezeichnung durch wahre Formen, durch Beugung und
rein grammatische Wrter.
These four stages are connected with each other durch verloren gehende Bedeutung der
Elemente und Abschleifung der Laute in langem Gebrauch.
One may simply overlook the evaluation of the different stages to which this theory is
committed. One may also regard it as a terminological issue whether the term
grammatical form can be correctly applied only at stage IV, and not also at the other
stages. But one must recognize that this account of the evolution of grammatical forms
is essentially a theory of grammaticalization, if only a sketchy one. Three things are
worth noting here. First, the term grammatical form must not mislead one into thinking
that this theory deals only with the e x p r e s s i o n of the language sign. The passages
quoted leave no doubt that the evolution in question affects both the meaning and the
expression of the grammatical sign. Secondly, the four stages are essentially the
morphological types of the linguistic typology of the time: stages I and/or II = isolating,
III = agglutinative, IV = flexional. Thirdly, linguistic typology, which in the twentieth
century was reduced to a synchronic discipline, is here conceived as evolutive typology.
Consequently, the theory of grammaticalization is tied, from the very start, to evolutive
typology.
This theory was subsequently widely received under the name of Aggluti-
nationstheorie. This term appears to refer only to the transition towards stage III, but
was later used to comprise all of the four stages.2 The first to apply the theory, Franz
Bopp, who shared ideas with Humboldt through correspondence, actually concentrated
on stage III. In his ber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung
mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache (1816:
147f; apud Arens 1969:177), and again in vol. I of his Vergleichende Grammatik des
Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litauischen, Altslavischen, Gothischen und
Deutschen (Berlin, 1833), he derived the personal endings of the Indo-European verb
from agglutinated personal pronouns.3 Several of the neogrammarians, among them
2
This inadequacy of the term was also felt by Jespersen, who proposed to substitute it by coales-
cence theory (1922:376).
3
This application of agglutination theory is not to be confused with Bopp's typology of roots.
Brugmann, were favorably inclined to hypotheses of this kind. Again, the typological
version of agglutination theory was most vigorously promoted by August Schleicher; he
followed Humboldt in making agglutination theory the center of his evolutive typology.
Another prominent representative of agglutination theory is Georg von der Gabelentz.
The essential passage from his Die Sprachwissenschaft, which remained unaltered in the
second edition (1891:251 = 1901:256), will be quoted in full here, because it summarizes
well what was known or thought about agglutination theory at that time.
Nun bewegt sich die Geschichte der Sprachen in der Diagonale zweier Krf-
te: des Bequemlichkeitstriebes, der zur Abnutzung der Laute fhrt, und des
Deutlichkeitstriebes, der jene Abnutzung nicht zur Zerstrung der Sprache
ausarten lt. Die Affixe verschleifen sich, verschwinden am Ende spurlos;
ihre Funktionen aber oder hnliche drngen wieder nach Ausdruck. Diesen
Ausdruck erhalten sie, nach der Methode der isolierenden Sprachen, durch
Wortstellung oder verdeutlichende Wrter. Letztere unterliegen wiederum
mit der Zeit dem Agglutinationsprozesse, dem Verschliffe und Schwunde,
und derweile bereitet sich fr das Verderbende neuer Ersatz vor: peri-
phrastische Ausdrcke werden bevorzugt; mgen sie syntaktische Gefge
oder wahre Komposita sein (englisch: I shall see, lateinisch videbo =
vide-fuo); immer gilt das Gleiche: die Entwicklungslinie krmmt sich zurck
nach der Seite der Isolation, nicht in die alte Bahn, sondern in eine annhernd
parallele. Darum vergleiche ich sie der Spirale.
The extent to which Gabelentz is obliged to Humboldt emerges clearly from this
quotation. On the other hand, two things are new here: First, an explanation for
grammaticalization is offered, this being seen as the result of two competing forces, the
tendency towards ease of articulation and the tendency towards distinctness. We will
meet these again and again, in various disguises, in the subsequent literature. Secondly,
the evolution is not conceived as linear, as leading from a primitive to an advanced stage,
but as basically cyclic, though Gabelentz is cautious enough to use the more precise
metaphor of the spiral. With the necessary refinements, this still corresponds to the most
recent insights.
In 1912, Antoine Meillet published his article L'volution des formes grammaticales.
Although the title is reminiscent of Humboldt's lecture, Meillet shows no sign of being
acquainted with it or with agglutination theory, though he certainly must have been. In
particular, his examples include Schlegel's examples. However, grammaticalization was
of interest to him not for its typological implications, but for its capacity to explain
certain facts in the history of Indo-European languages. He thus continues the Bopp -
neogrammarian tradition. Meillet assumes three main classes of words, mots
principaux, mots accessoires and mots grammaticaux, between which there is a
gradual transition.
L'affaiblissement du sens et l'affaiblissement de la forme des mots accessoires
vont de pair; quand l'un et l'autre sont assez avancs, le mot accessoire peut
finir par ne plus tre qu'un lment priv de sens propre, joint un mot
principal pour en marquer le rle grammatical. Le changement d'un mot en
lment grammatical est accompli. (139).
This leads Meillet to what appears to be a reformulation of Gabelentz's agglutination
theory:
Les langues suivent ainsi une sorte de dveloppement en spirale; elles ajou-
tent de mots accessoires pour obtenir une expression intense; ces mots
s'affaiblissent, se dgradent et tombent au niveau de simples /141/ outils
grammaticaux; on ajoute de nouveaux mots ou des mots diffrents en vue de
l'expression; l'affaiblissement recommence, et ainsi sans fin.
The two driving factors he mentions, expressivit and usage, also have much in
common with Gabelentz's tendency towards distinctness and towards ease. Even when
he contends that analytic (= periphrastic) and synthetic constructions do not differ in
principle, because they are connected through grammaticalization, citing the example of
the Latin-Romance tenses, he only seems to strengthen a point that was already implicit
in agglutination theory. However, Meillet does go beyond this. First, he introduces the
term grammaticalization (133), though he consistently puts it in quotation marks. He
does not define the term, but uses it in the sense of attribution du caractre grammatical
un mot jadis autonome (131). Secondly, Meillet opposes grammaticalization to
analogy as the two principal processes of grammatical change (s. below ch. 5.4), thus
assigning grammaticalization a more narrowly defined place in linguistic theory. And
finally (147f), he offers what appears to be a useful extension of this notion: he considers
that the order of constituents may be grammaticalized, too, illustrating from Latin, in
which word order signifies expressive nuances, and French, where it expresses syntactic
relations.
Three years later, in his article Le renouvellement des conjonctions, Meillet extends
his theory to the historical analysis of conjunctions, especially in Latin-Romance. The
recruitment of new words which are then to follow the paths of grammaticalization
already well established in the language, is termed renouvellement and distinguished
from cration, where grammatical and/or formal categories previously absent from the
language are introduced. The substitution of Latin nam by quare > French car is an
example of renovation (renewal).4
Continuing in chronological order, we next come to Edward Sapir, who again represents
the other, Humboldtian tradition. Sapir's primary interest was neither in grammaticaliza-
tion as a force in historical change (he does not use the term) nor in agglutination theory
or evolutive typology; but in establishing a continuum of the different kinds of linguistic
concepts as a basis for his synchronic typology, he actually contributes to both of these
4
Renovation will here be used instead of the traditional renewal because it offers a neat
counterpart to innovation.
issues. In ch. V of his Language, Sapir (1921:102) defines the following four classes of
concepts:
9
I. Basic Concepts
Material content
II. Derivational Concepts
9
III. Concrete Relational Concepts
Relational
IV. Pure Relational Concepts.
Semantically, there is a gradience through these four classes from the concrete to the
abstract; morphologically, there is a parallel gradience from independent words or
radical elements to expression by affixing non-radical elements to radical elements ...
or by their inner modification, by independent words, or by position. Sapir also
mentions the possibility of a word's diachronic passage through this continuum. His most
important, and most problematic, innovation is his attempt to give a more precise
semantic basis to the different grammaticalization stages. In this, he has had practically
no followers. One point which might at first seem to be of minor importance is
noteworthy: the expression of grammatical concepts by position shows up at the end
of Sapir's scale, while it appeared at the beginning of Humboldt's four stages. Take this
together with Meillet's contention that word order may be grammaticalized, too, and the
problem becomes obvious.
Henri Frei's work may be mentioned in passing. Nothing in his book La grammaire des
fautes (1929) is intended to be a contribution to grammaticalization theory; but he does
adduce a lot of relevant data for un passage incessant du signe expressif au signe
arbitraire, for which he finds two forces responsible, le besoin d'expressivit and la
loi de l'usure (233). Frei's association of grammaticalization with a change from the
expressive to the arbitrary will yet occupy us (p. 115).
In the period of American and even of European structuralism, topics such as
grammaticalization were not fashionable. With the decline of morphological and evoluti-
ve typology, this vein of research in grammaticalization virtually broke off. The only
work of this time in which agglutination theory figures prominently is the Africanist Carl
Meinhof's book Die Entstehung flektierender Sprachen (1936), in which he treats the
evolution of flexional morphology in Semitic, Hamitic and Indo-European languages.
Following Jespersen (1922:375-388; see ch. V.4), Meinhof in ch. 4 posits two principal
ways in which inflection can evolve: 1) through grammaticalization, for instance of
nouns or verbs via postpositions to case suffixes; or 2) through the reinterpretation of
already existing phonological outgrowths of the word.
Apart from this sporadic recurrence, however, agglutination theory does not, as far as I
can see, regain its former popularity until Hodge 1970 and Givn 1971 (the latter
apparently being unaware of the venerable tradition which he continues). Two important
articles which throw new light on grammaticalization are Roman Jakobson's Boas's
view of grammatical meaning (1959) and V. M. irmunskij's The word and its
boundaries (1966; Russian original 1961). Jakobson attributes to Boas a distinction
between those concepts which are grammaticalized and consequently obligatory in

some languages but lexicalized and merely optional in others (1959:492), adducing the
obligatoriness of grammatical categories as the specific feature which distinguishes them
from lexical meanings (489). This is clearly an advance because it adds an essential
syntactic aspect to the until then almost exclusively morphological view of
grammaticalization. Here for the first time, too, an opposition between grammaticaliza-
tion and lexicalization is formulated.
In 3 of his article, irmunskij deals with the unification of the word combination into
a single (compound) word. There are two possible directions that this process can take:
either towards grammaticalization, which yields a specific new analytical form of the
word, or towards lexicalization, which yields a phraseological equivalent of the word
in the semantic sense. (83). In the first case, the next stage is a synthetic inflectional
word form; in the second case, the next stage is a compound word. Several points should
be stressed here. First, there are processes of unification which do not involve the
development of one element of the combination into a grammatical formative and which
are therefore not regarded as grammaticalization. Second, such processes are called
lexicalization. Observe that this use of the term lexicalization is quite different from
Jakobson's use quoted above; this will constitute one of our problems (ch. 5.2). Thirdly,
the term grammaticalization is used here not (only) for the transition from the analytic
to the synthetic construction, i.e. the agglutination process, but is explicitly applied to the
formation of an analytic construction. This is consistent with the meaning of the term
which covers an open-ended continuum comprising all of Humboldt's or Sapir's four
stages.
Outside structuralism, the Indo-Europeanist tradition of grammaticalization theory
remained uninterrupted. Its most important representatives are Jerzy Kuryowicz and
Emile Benveniste. Kuryowicz applied the concept of grammaticalization systematically
in his book The inflectional categories of Indo-European, many of which are explained
through grammaticalization. In his article The evolution of grammatical categories
(1965; notice again the tradition of article titles!), Kuryowicz defines:
Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme
advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a
more grammatical status, e.g. from a derivative formant to an inflectional
one. (52)
By increasing range Kuryowicz means wider distribution, a defining factor of
grammaticalization which had hitherto only been hinted at by Schlegel. Notice that
word-formation is reintroduced into the picture, which we might think to have excluded
from grammaticalization with irmunskij. Kuryowicz then gives a survey of various
Indo-European grammatical categories and their development through grammaticaliza-
tion. He also opposes grammaticalization to lexicalization in a third sense which will
occupy us in ch. 5.2.
Benveniste, who, curiously enough, consistently avoids the term grammaticalization,

has made various contributions to the subject. In his article Mutations of linguistic
categories (1968), he takes up Meillet's distinction between cration and renou-
vellement, explaining that the former is innovative change, where grammatical
categories may disappear or emerge for the first time, while the latter is conservative
change, where categories are only formally renovated. The examples are again the
same as in Meillet 1912: the Latin-Romance perfect and future.
Switching back, for the last time, to the conception of evolutive typology, we find this
revived in two articles by Carleton T. Hodge and Talmy Givn. In his paper The
linguistic cycle (1970), Hodge somewhat simplifies the picture by distinguishing only
two stages, one with heavy syntax and little morphology (Sm), which roughly comprises
Humboldt's stages I and II; and another with little syntax and heavy morphology (sM),
which corresponds to Humboldt's stages III and IV. His point is essentially an empirical
one: he adduces the history of Egyptian as factual proof for the hypothesis that a single
language can pass through a full cycle sM Sm sM. His slogan that one man's
morphology was an earlier man's syntax (3) is echoed in Givn's formulation Today's
morphology is yesterday's syntax. (1971:413), which is the central thesis of his article
Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's field trip. We will
deal in ch. 8.3 with the role of grammaticalization in historical reconstruction. Here it
suffices to mention that Givn has expanded his theory in various works, proposing, in
1979, the grammaticalization scale which we will discuss in ch. 2.2. The notion of
grammaticalization has by now become widely known and is receiving ever greater
interest. I will end my review here and discuss more recent work in thematically more
specific connections.
Summing up, we can say that the theory of grammaticalization has been developed by
two largely independent linguistic traditions, that of Indo-European historical linguistics
and that of language typology. The moment has come, I think, where the two threads
should be united. One tradition is conspicuously absent from this picture, namely that of
structural linguistics, from de Saussure to our day. This is by no means an accident:
whereas historical linguistics and typology have been concerned, from their beginning,
with processes and continuous phenomena and thus could easily accommodate
grammaticalization as a process which creates such phenomena, structural linguistics has
tended to favour a static view of language and clear-cut binary distinctions. In ch. 6 we
will try and see whether the perspective of grammaticalization cannot, in fact shed some
light on problems traditional in structural linguistics.
2. GRAMMATICALIZATION:
CHARACTERIZATION AND DELIMITATION OF THE CONCEPT
2.1. The term grammaticalization

The derivational pattern which the word grammaticalization belongs to suggests that it
means a process in which something becomes or is made grammatical (cf. legalization).
In view of this, the term is unfortunate in several respects. Firstly, the term
grammatical has various meanings. In the above explication of grammaticalization,
grammatical signifies that which belongs to, is part of, the grammar, as opposed to, e.g.,
what belongs to the lexicon, to stylistics or discourse. Apart from this, grammatical has
come to mean something completely unrelated to the notion of grammaticalization: x is
grammatical is an abbreviation of x is grammatically correct and accordingly means that
x conforms to (as opposed to: is incompatible with, violates) the rules of grammar. What
is particularly distressing about this ambiguity is the fact that while grammatical may
have either meaning in attributive use, it can only have the second meaning in
predicative use; and yet the first meaning is needed in the predicative use which is made
of it in the above explication of grammaticalization.
Secondly, in addition to the above explication, grammaticalization must mean a process
in which something becomes or is made m o r e grammatical (cf. the quotation from
Kuryowicz on p. 6). We defer to ch. 6.2 the problem of what it means to say that
something belongs to the grammar to a greater or lesser degree, and observe here that
this latter notion should be designated by the noun grammaticality. That is, in a theory
of grammaticalization, the term grammaticality would be needed to mean the degree of
grammaticalization which an element has reached. Again, however, this term (or its
variant grammaticalness) is currently based on the other meaning of grammatical and
therefore means the well-formedness of something according to the rules of grammar.
There would seem to exist a way out. Some authors (e.g. Givn 1975:49, Bolinger
1978:489) have used grammaticization instead of grammaticalization.5 We might
adopt this use and substitute, accordingly, grammaticity for grammaticality in the
intended sense. Unfortunately, this terminological arrangement would soon come to an
inconsistent end, because we would not only have to call grammatic what we always
have called grammatical; what is more, this terminological regularization would not be
implementable in French, the language in which the term grammaticalization was
coined in the first place. Finally, it seems paradoxical to give up the well-established
grammaticalization instead of the rare grammaticization. We will therefore abide by
the terms grammatical, grammaticality and grammaticalization and use them
5
A further abbreviation is represented in Werner's (1979:965f) German participle grammatisiert,
formed on an unattested grammatisieren to grammatize (i.e. grammaticalize).
2.1. The term grammaticalization 9
exclusively in the sense in which grammatical designates that which belongs to the
grammar. It seems more convenient to leave the resolution of the terminological conflict
to the other side; one might, for example, resort to the expression grammatically
well-formed if one wants to signify grammatically well-formed.
A more serious question is whether the term grammaticalization is not unduly stretched
if we apply it to such a large range of phenomena. On the one hand, I intend to follow
irmunskij in subsuming the formation of analytic constructions under grammaticali-
zation. On the other hand, the process does not stop at the level of inflectional
morphology. The English pronoun him, after having been grammaticalized to a
verb-suffixal object marker -im in Tok Pisin, has further evolved into an invariable
transitive verb marker. Such linear extensions of grammaticalization processes into
derivational morphology are not at all rare. On the one hand, since such extensions
continue the same pattern, they should be called by the same name. On the other hand, it
does not seem correct to say that the suffix -im, in its change from an object marker to a
transitive verb marker, becomes more grammatical. A term slightly more comprehensive
than grammaticalization would seem to be needed; but the alternatives that have
appeared in the literature are no more satisfactory. Li & Thomson (1974), Givn
(1979[u]:209) and Brettschneider (1980:94) have offered the term condensation
essentially for what is here called grammaticalization.6 A precursor of this term is Gabe-
lentz's (1901:433, 436) Verdichtungsprozess. In a loose sense, condensation may be
used to designate one aspect of grammaticalization, namely the narrowing down of the
level of grammatical structure (see ch. 4.3.1); and this is actually what the above authors
have in mind. However, if we take the word literally, it would have to mean that
something becomes denser, compacter in the course of grammaticalization. On the
contrary, the authors quoted in ch. 1 concur that the meaning of a grammaticalized sign
is weakened in the same measure as its expression is weakened; a more grammaticalized
sign does not say the same thing as a less grammaticalized one in a smaller space, as
seems to be implied by the term condensation.
The term reduction (used, for instance, in Langacker 1977:103-107) does not have this
shortcoming, but displays a different one, which, incidentally, it shares with
condensation. It is not specific enough, because it covers also the reduction of a phrase
to a compound word, which is not a grammaticalization process.
Authors depending on A. Martinet have sometimes used the term morphmatisation
essentially with the meaning grammaticalization (e.g. in Martinet (ed.) 1968:1064f).
This presupposes Martinet's terminology, in which morphme equals other linguists'
grammatical morpheme. Apart from its local character, morphmatisation has the
disadvantage of being too narrow. Although the formation of grammatical morphemes is
probably the focus of grammaticalization, it is by no means all of it.
6
Brettschneider, Li and Thompson actually apply this term only to one specific grammaticaliza-
tion channel, namely the reduction of a (subordinate) clause to a word.
2. Characterization and delimitation of the concept 10
We are thus led back to our term grammaticalization. I see no way to avoid its exten-
sion, in a generic sense, to processes such as the one illustrated above. If one wants to
make specific reference to just that type of process, one will, of course, not use the term
grammaticalization; ch. 5.2 will deal with the question of whether a convenient term
can be found.
2.2. The meaning of grammaticalization

Having settled on the term, we may now characterize more fully the concept. We will
first justify one decision which has been presupposed in the above terminological
discussion, namely the interpretation of grammaticalization as a process which may not
only change a lexical into a grammatical item, but may also shift an item from a less
grammatical to a more grammatical status, in Kuryowicz's words. Since adjectives
derived in -al are commonly non-relative (they have no polar antonyms and do not take
part in comparison; cf. maternal), one might take the position that the property of being
grammatical, of belonging to the grammar, is a binary property and not a matter of
degree. As I said, we will postpone discussion of this problem to ch. 5.2. Anyway, if this
were accepted, then grammaticalization could not be a gradual, relative process. From
this position it would be correct to say that something is either grammaticalized or not
grammaticalized. This is the position of Jakobson, Mel'uk and Lyons. Lyons writes
(1977:234):
Different languages make a different selection, as it were, from the set of
possible distinctions that could be made and grammaticalize them (i.e. make
them grammatically functional) in terms of such categories as tense, number,
gender, case, person, proximity, visibility, shape, animacy, etc.
Throughout his book, Lyons consistently uses the expression x is grammaticalized in
language L only if x is a semantic category which is represented by a grammatical
category in L. At first sight, this appears to provide us with a simple and intuitively
satisfactory interpretation of the notion grammaticalization. But then we must also
provide binary criteria which answer the question: which conditions must something
fulfill in order to be a grammatical category of a language L? Jakobson (1959:489; see
the quotation above on p. 6) and Mel'uk (1976:84) answer that the essential criterion is
obligatoriness: a meaning is grammatical in L if the speaker cannot choose to leave it
unspecified. The criterion of obligatoriness will in fact be used below (ch. 4.2.3); but it
does not appear to me to be an absolute one. Something is obligatory relative to the
context; i.e. it may be obligatory in one context, optional in another and impossible in a
third context. Take, for instance, the category of number. In Latin, every noun form
compulsorily belongs either to the singular or to the plural; the speaker cannot choose to
leave the number unspecified. Here the criterion correctly decides that number is a
grammatical category in Latin. In Turkish, most nouns may be specified for number by
adding a plural suffix. Some nouns may not, for instance terms of nationality or
profession if they form the predicate. No noun may be specified for number if preceded
by a cardinal numeral. In most other contexts, number is optional; i.e. the unmarked form
may signify the singular or the plural. Is number obligatory in Turkish or not? Certainly
not nearly as obligatory as in Latin. Should we therefore say that number is not a
grammatical category in Turkish? Would it not be more illuminating to say that number
is more grammaticalized in Latin than in Turkish?
An analogous argument could be made with respect to any other criterion that one might
be inclined to propose. Ch. 3 will provide abundant evidence that even the mere
transition from a lexeme to a grammatical formative (if we were to restrict grammatic-
alization to this process) is not a leap, but a gradual shift to a new function. The category
of prepositions is a notable example. In many languages, there are some prepositions like
English beyond which need not be treated individually in the grammar because they obey
general rules of syntax like other ordinary lexemes; and there are other prepositions like
of which require special treatment in the grammar because they are obligatory in a
number of constructions. The space in between is filled by the bulk of prepositions,
which are at different stages on their way from lexeme to grammatical formative. I
therefore see no way to avoid the conclusion that grammaticalization is a process of
gradual change, and that its products may have different degrees of grammaticality.
If grammaticalization is not a binary, but a gradual change of state, then we must face the
problem that it may be an open-ended process. Some authors (e.g. Ronneberger-Sibold
1980:113-115) have restricted the notion of grammaticalization to the passage from an
analytic to a synthetic construction. We have already observed (p. 2) that this passage,
the agglutination process, stood godfather to the denomination of agglutination theory.
Possibly this transition into the unity of the word is the most salient phase of the
grammaticalization process. Nevertheless, the nature of the process is the same before
and after this phase. The formation of analytic constructions out of word combinations
(irmunskij), on the one hand, and the melting of an agglutinative to a flexional
formation,7 on the other, are phases of the grammaticalization process. The question
naturally arises: where does grammaticalization start, and where does it end? We will
provisionally answer this question by diagram F1, which incorporates the one presented
in Givn 1979[u]:209.
7
The terminological confusion associated, especially in German, with the term Flexion and its
cognates may be resolved in English, for our purposes, by the following convention: inflection
will be opposed to word-formation (esp. derivation) as the syntax-bound part of morphology;
flexion will be opposed to agglutination (and isolation) as one of the techniques of
morphological typology (namely the fusional or amalgamating one, which Sapir (1921:129ff) calls
inflective). Cf. Comrie 1981[L]:41f on the terminological dilemma.
F1. The phases of grammaticalization

level Discourse Syntax Morphology Morphophonemics
synthetic- synthetic-
technique isolating > analytic > > > zero
agglutinating flexional
8 8 8
phase syntacticization morphologization demorphemicization loss

process grammaticalization
This picture is incomplete and simplified, because it represents only two of the factors
involved in grammaticalization, namely those that will be called condensation and
coalescence in ch. 4.3, and because it pretends a perfect correlation between these two.
Nevertheless, it suffices to illustrate, for present purposes, the range of the grammatic-
alization process and the phases conventionally recognized in it. Thus we assume that
grammaticalization starts from a free collocation of potentially uninflected lexical words
in discourse. This is converted into a syntactic construction by syntacticization, whereby
some of the lexemes assume grammatical functions so that the construction may be
called analytic. Morphologization, which here means the same as agglutination, reduces
the analytic construction to a synthetic one, so that grammatical formatives become
agglutinating affixes. In the next phase, the unity of the word is tightened, as the
morphological technique changes from agglutinative to flexional. This transition from
morphology to morphophonemics will here be called demorphemicization. Givn calls
it lexicalization, and this is the fourth sense in which the term appears in the literature.
This need not worry us at the moment. We pass over to the final phase, where expression
and content of the grammatical category become zero.
I repeat that this account is simplified. It makes it appear as if the grammaticalization
process had a clear-cut end, which we will see it has not. On the other hand, the start of
the process is not readily identifiable either, and we will defer this problem, too. The sole
function of F1 is to give a first impression of what is covered by grammaticalization.
A single example to illustrate the whole process is not easy to come by, though such ex-
amples probably exist. At any rate, it may be remarked at this juncture that it is not
essential to grammaticalization theory that every element affected by grammaticalization
enter the process at the start and leave it at the end, where start and end are identified
with reference to F1. On the contrary, this is certainly the rarest case. I will therefore
illustrate a complete grammaticalization process with two examples which together
cover the entire range.
From the beginning of the literary tradition up to the postclassical period, the Latin
language had an elaborate system of demonstrative pronouns. There was a deictically
neutral pronoun is, which was also used as an anaphoric personal pronoun. Besides,
there were three deictic pronouns, of first (hic), second (iste) and third (ille) person
deixis. Apart from their function as NPs, which is our concern here, all four could
function as determiners. In Archaic Latin, the members of the deictic triad always had
some demonstrative force. Their use was subject to no syntactic rule; they occurred
where and how the speaker saw fit. However, ille was the unmarked member of the triad
and began to assume anaphoric function, thus intruding into the area of is, which it
finally ousted in Vulgar Latin. At this stage, ille was a neutral anaphoric pronoun,
witness E1, from the first half of the 6th cent. AD.
E1. duo rustici sic ad hora captum comederunt, et ita illis contigit, et unus illorum
LATIN sanguinem deiuso produxit nimium. (Anth. obs.cib. 25)
two peasants ate one [turtle dove] just caught, and it so happened to them,
and one of them voided too much blood (Pulgram 1978:288)
Here we have already entered the path of syntacticization, because the function of ille is
but the grammatical representation of an NP of a previous clause. Still, ille is not
commonly used as a personal pronoun in subject position. This step has been made, to a
varying extent, in the Romance languages. In Standard Italian, for instance, a finite verb
does not need an overt subject; vende alone may be used to mean he sells. In French,
however, the personal pronoun il (<ille) is obligatory if there is no other subject; the
corresponding example would be il vend. With this, the phase of syntacticization is
completed: we have arrived at an analytical verb form.
The morphologization of this combination would presuppose that il remains present even
when there is a subject in the same clause. This step has not (yet) been taken; but
preparations are being made. In a construction such as Et lui, vend-il des fleurs?, the
left-dislocated NP is almost the syntactic subject of the clause, and yet the pronoun il
cannot be absent.8 It is enclitic to the verb and could, through agglutination, become a
suffixal personal ending. (It is improbable that it will do so in French; but this is not
essential to the demonstration.) Summarizing then, we have seen that Latin ille has
started at the beginning of the scale in F1 and has advanced, in the shape of French il, to
the beginning of the morphologization phase.
The second half of this demonstration takes us back to Proto-Indo-European. The
so-called secondary personal endings of the active verb were *-m, -s, -t for the three
singular persons. Though the details are not recoverable, scholars generally agree that
these suffixes derive from the agglutination of personal pronouns. (As will be recalled
[p. 2], this was already Bopp's position.) In particular, the third person singular suffix *-
t is most probably a reduced form of the neutral demonstrative stem *to- (details in
8
Cf. also sentences such as A quelle heure le train arrive-t-il?, La grammaire n'a-t-elle pas le
devoir de s'attacher aux fonctions?, Peut-tre les hypothses contraires veulent-elles seulement dire
que ...
Szemernyi 1970:302-305 and Seebold 1971). We can therefore be fairly confident that
this example takes up at the very point where the former example leaves off.
Still in Proto-Indo-European times, these endings were extended by a suffix *-i, whose
nature need not concern us here (cf. p. 32). By the time of Archaic Latin, this -i was
again lost. The personal suffixes retained their pronominal function, i.e. their capability
of representing the subject, over the most part of the subsequent time. Classical Latin
vendit means he sells and needs an overt (pronominal) subject even less than Italian
vende does. However, the pronominal function gradually got lost, and parallel to this the
morphological bond between the stem and the personal endings grew tighter. In Latin,
the personal endings cannot be neatly separated from the stem, which means that they are
not agglutinative but flexional and they are partly different according to conjugation
class; so in this sense, and to this extent, they are demorphemicized. This is the transition
from morphology to morphophonemics. The phonological substance of the endings is
then further reduced; to the Latin vendo, vendis, vendit corresponds the Italian vendo,
vendi, vende. As was mentioned above, the Italian personal endings can still represent,
by themselves, the person of the subject. This is no longer so in French. The personal
endings have been reduced to zero in the singular (and in the third person plural), which
means that apart from exceptions, person is no longer a morphological category of the
singular verb. This is the end of the grammaticalization process.
2.3. Degrammaticalization
Various authors (Givn 1975:96, Langacker 1977:103f, Vincent 1980[I]:56-60) have
claimed that grammaticalization is unidirectional; that is, it is an irreversible process, the
scale in F1 cannot be run through from right to left, there is no degrammaticalization.
Others have adduced examples in favor of degrammaticalization. The few that have
come to my knowledge will be briefly discussed.
Kuryowicz (1965:52f) maintains that there is a reverse process to grammaticalization
which he calls lexicalization. His examples have, according to him, the following
structure: derivational category is grammaticalized to inflectional category and is again
lexicalized to derivational category. The examples are: Proto-Indo-European *-a was a
derivational nominal affix with collective meaning. In Latin, it was grammaticalized to
the plural marker of neuter nouns, e.g. ovum egg, pl. ova. In Italian, the Latin neuter
nouns have become masculine and form their plural in -i. However, -a is again used as
a derivational collective suffix, e.g. in muro wall mura, uovo egg uova.
The Pre-English meaning of the perfect was stative. In Modern English, all the verbs
which formerly formed their perfect with be use have now, and the meaning of the
perfect is no longer stative but completive. However, for some verbs the perfect with be
has been restored in the old stative meaning, e.g. is come/gone.
Again, the verbs can, may, shall, dare are original perfect forms (known as
preterite-presents in Germanic linguistics). While the perfect has changed its meaning in
2.3. Degrammaticalization 15
English, today these forms again signify a present state. Furthermore, the hypothesis that
they have changed from inflectional forms to derivational stems is evidenced by the fact
that they have developed an inflection of their own: could, might, should, durst.9
None of these examples stands up to closer scrutiny. All of them suffer from the defect
that the newly evolved derivational category does not possess a minimum of
productivity, whereas those Proto-Indo-European derivational categories which they
ultimately go back to (if we may assume, for the sake of argument, that perfect was a
derivational category in Proto-Indo-European) must clearly have been highly productive,
for otherwise they could not have yielded inflectional categories. Instead, the specific
examples which Kuryowicz adduces are virtually the only ones of their kind; that is,
they are lexicalized in quite a different sense (the one we already encountered in
irmunskij): they are frozen, not amenable to any rule, idiomaticized.
Secondly (and this is a difficulty which most putative examples of degrammaticalization
are liable to meet with), these lexicalized forms have not really made their way back
from a more grammaticalized, inflectional stage, but instead directly continue the
original stage. Italian uova is not a modern alternative to uovi, nor has the construction
is gone developed on the basis of an earlier has gone, nor do can etc. go back to older
completive perfect forms. Instead, Italian uova continues Latin ova, and English is gone
and can etc. continue Proto-Germanic stative perfects or preterite-presents, respectively.
Finally, although it must be admitted that the -a of Ital. mura does not go back to Latin,
it is not the case that uova and mura are collectives; they are plural forms. So these
examples do not establish a degrammaticalization process.
Kahr (1976:122) offers a single example of degrammaticalization. Modern Turkish has
a postposition iin for, which, like some others, takes nominal complements in their
unmarked form, but pronominal complements in the genitive (cf. p.71-73 below). In
some rare instances, this morpheme is suffixed, e.g. in on-un-n (D3-GEN-for)
therefore. Since these suffixed forms are archaic relics, the modern productive
postpositional usage must be explained, according to Kahr, as a degrammaticalization of
the suffixal construction.
This is just like explaining the prepositional function of Portuguese com with through
the degrammaticalization of the prefixal construction comigo, contigo etc. with me, with
you etc. or, for that matter, of the Latin suffixal construction mecum, tecum etc. It seems
clear that the Turkish case must be just like the Romance one: What was originally an
adposition continued to be an adposition in modern times, except in combination with
pronouns, where it became affixal already in early times.
9
As a last example, Kuryowicz mentions in passing the development of sex to gender to sex
from Proto-Indo-European via Proto-Germanic to Modern English. This is a process whose details
are complicated; however, it is, in the last analysis, an instance of continuous grammaticalization;
see Lehmann 1982[U], 7.2.
A class of possible examples comes from decliticization. One factor of the phonological
weakening of a grammaticalized element is its deaccentuation and subsequent cliticiza-
tion. If elements could be found which were exclusively clitic at a former stage, but at a
later stage allowed an autonomous use, these would be examples of degrammaticaliza-
tion. Jeffers & Zwicky (1980, 3) first adduce the Indo-European relative pronouns *yo
and *kwo-, which may be accentuated in their respective Sanskrit and Latin forms yas
and qui. These are said to derive from clitic connective particles which formed a
sequence with clitic anaphoric pronouns. Such a sequence coalesced and was
reinterpreted as an inflected relative pronoun.
Two objections must be raised against this argument. First, even granting the
etymological correctness of this reconstruction, nobody can guarantee that these
connectives were actually clitic at the stage in question. Hittite, for instance, does have
such sequences as hypothesized by Jeffers and Zwicky; but the connectives are not clitic.
Second, the reconstruction proposed by Jeffers and Zwicky is probably false. The syntax
of the clitic connectives in the historical languages (e.g. Hittite -ya, Sanskrit -ca, Latin
-que) differs markedly from that assumed by them for Indo-European. The relative
pronouns are much more plausibly derived from an anaphoric/demonstrative and an
interrogative/indefinite pronoun, respectively (see Lehmann 1984, ch. VI.1), whose
relation to the connectives may well be left open. Given the notorious indeterminacy of
reconstruction, everything is, of course, possible. What we need, however, are not
hypothetical, but historical examples.
Jeffers' and Zwicky's second case is of a completely different nature. The verb of such
ancient Indo-European languages as Vedic could be unaccentuated, especially in main
clauses; this appears to be no longer possible at later stages. Though this is probably true,
it is not an instance of decliticization, since verbs have never been clitic. Clisis is a
lexically inherent property of an element which may manifest itself either independently
or in dependence on the semantosyntactic context (Jeffers' and Zwicky's special vs.
simple clitics). In the case at hand, however, we are dealing with a certain pattern of
sentence intonation which leaves the main verb unaccentuated and which ceases to be
usual, or even possible, at a later stage.
The last potential example of degrammaticalization is provided by English. In
Proto-Germanic, the genitive suffix -s was a flexional ending bound to the word. In
Modern English, however, we find such phrases as the King of England's daughter and
the man I met yesterday's son, where the -s is agglutinated to a complex NP. This looks
like a bona fide case. However, the historical details are complex (see Janda 1980). On
the one hand, the originally flexional -s became more agglutinative, in Middle English,
as a contingent result of the reduction and regularization of the Old English case
paradigm. On the other hand, dialects and lower sociolects of Middle English had the
alternative construction NP his N (e.g. the king (of England) his daughter) available,
which itself became homophonous with the inherited genitive. As a result, the genitive
suffix was reanalyzed as a clitic possessive pronoun. Thus, it was not the genitive on its
own what expanded to higher syntactic levels. Rather, the (real or putative) clitic
possessive pronoun, which had been compatible with these levels from start, got
generalized to non-masculine genders.
We may therefore conclude this discussion with the observation that no cogent examples
of degrammaticalization have been found. This result is important because it allows us
to recognize grammaticalization at the synchronic level. Given two variants which are
related by the parameters of grammaticalization to be made explicit in ch. 4, we can
always tell which way the grammaticalization goes, or must have gone.10 The
significance of this for the purposes of internal reconstruction is obvious; see ch. 8.3.
If grammaticalization is really a unidirectional process, one must ask why this should be
so. I will not anticipate here the theoretical considerations of the final chapter, but
mention only the explanation that Givn (1975:96) has given. He says that grammatic-
alization essentially involves a deletion of both semantic and phonological substance.
Degrammaticalization would have to be an enrichment in semantic and phonological
substance. Now while the result of a deletion process may be predictable, its source is
generally not predictable from the result; so the product of an enrichment process, or of
degrammaticalization, would also not be predictable. This appears to be a step in the
right direction. However, it remains to be seen, first to what extent the results of
grammaticalization processes are really predictable, and secondly, if rules for these
processes can be found, why natural languages cannot apply them, at least to non-zero
elements, in reverse direction.
2.4. Renovation and innovation

Grammaticalization changes analytic into synthetic constructions. There are, however,
numerous instances in the history where languages have changed from the synthetic to
the analytic type. This was in fact the observation on which August W. Schlegel (1818:
14-30) based his introduction of the terms analytic and synthetic in the first place. He
observed, for instance, that Latin case inflection has been substituted by prepositional
constructions in the Romance languages, that certain tenses are no longer formed by verb
inflection but by auxiliaries, and so forth. If such changes from the synthetic to the
analytic do occur, aren't they instances of degrammaticalization? This has been
maintained by Lightfoot (1979:223-225), but the argument has rightly been rejected by
Heine & Reh (1984:75f). Far from invalidating grammaticalization theory, the evolution
synthetic 6 analytic is predicted by it and has been so predicted since the early days of
agglutination theory. If the evolution along grammaticalization scales takes the form of
a spiral, this implies that forms which are given up near the end of the scale may be
10
This is true, in the first place, on the synchronic and diachronic axes. The actual historical
development may still have deviated from diachronic principles if other factors such as borrowing
intervened.
substituted by new forms entering at its beginning. For degrammaticalization to obtain,

analytical forms would have to be historical continuants of synthetic forms; but this
actually never happens.
This presupposes that we make a clear distinction between the two diachronic relations
y continues x and y replaces x. Within a grammaticalization scale, the relation y
continues x is equivalent to the relation x is grammaticalized to y. However, the
relation y replaces x is neither a relation of grammaticalization nor of degrammati-
calization. We shall call it, with Meillet's renouvellement in mind, the relation of
renovation, also called renewal in the literature. Within a grammaticalization scale, y
replaces x is equivalent to x is renovated by y. For brevity's sake, I will employ the
following symbolism:
x>y = x is grammaticalized to y;
x /r y = x is renovated by y.
Examples:
Latin ille > French il
Latin clara mente > Italian chiaramente
Latin ille /r French ce(lui) l
Latin clare /r Italian chiaramente
Further examples are the renovation of the future, perfect, passive and adjective
comparison, which had been synthetic categories in the ancient Indo-European
languages, by the corresponding analytic categories in several of the modern languages,
including English and the Romance languages. A particularly rich field of constant
renovation are the subordinating conjunctions as already observed by Meillet. All of
these examples will be discussed more fully in ch. 3. A wealth of further material for the
development of the synthetic towards the analytic may be found in Tauli 1966, ch. I.
Now consider the situation where an analytic construction y comes into being, but there
is no x such that x /r y. For example, the Latin ille, illa has also been grammaticalized
into the French definite articles le, la. But when we ask what the x is in Latin x /r
French le, la, we get no answer. Latin had no grammatical category which corresponded
to the French articles, so that nothing has been renovated by these. This is an instance of
what Meillet (1915f) and Traugott (1980) have called (novel) creation. This is an
imprecise term, because all linguistic activity, including renovation, is creative activity.
Innovation, as used in Benveniste 1968, seems to be a better one, because it expresses
the desired meaning and provides a suitable contrast to renovation.11 Unfortunately, to
innovate is intransitive, so that we will resort to create in case we need a transitive verb.
Further examples of innovation are the introduction of numeral classifiers in Persian, the
distinction expressed by ser vs. estar in Spanish, the progressive form in English and the
imperfective vs. perfective aspects in Slavic.
11
A wider use of this term has been made in Indo-European linguistics, where it may cover what
is here called innovation, renovation and analogical change.
In theory, the distinction between innovation and renovation is entirely clear. Innovation
is revolutionary; it creates grammatical categories that had not been in the language
before. Renovation is conservative; it only introduces new forms for old categories. The
notion of a category which had not been in the language before should cause no
problems. Obviously no one would like to commit himself to the claim that no ancestral
stage of the Indo-European languages had numeral classifiers, an essence/accidence
distinction or a distinction between progressive and neutral or perfective and
imperfective aspects. What matters here is the stage immediately preceding the
innovation.
In practice, however, there are numerous borderline cases between innovation and
renovation. First we must notice that renovation takes its time. There are admittedly
cases where the new construction entirely and almost instantly replaces the old one,
taking a function and shape maximally similar to the old ones; this has occurred in the
renovation of the Latin future in the Romance languages. More often, however, the new
and the old constructions coexist for some time. An example is provided by the new
analytic and the old synthetic perfect (pass compos vs. pass simple) in the Romance
languages. As long as such a situation obtains, the two categories tend to be functionally
non-identical, so that we have two categories where we formerly only had one. So far
this is not really a conservative change. Conservatism asserts itself only when the old
construction falls out of use and the new one takes over its function (and possibly its
morphosyntactic form). So what is conservative about renovation is not the particular
situation brought about by the introduction of the renovative periphrastic construction,
but rather the reentering of a grammaticalization channel which, if run through, will lead
to a result maximally similar to the situation which had obtained formerly.
Secondly, two grammatical constructions can be functionally similar only to the extent
that they are formally similar. If the renovation of a construction enters upon a path that
cannot lead to anything formally similar to the former construction, a complete
replacement of the old function will never be obtained, and to this extent the change will
be partly renovative, partly innovative. Consider the change that is often called the
renovation of Latin case inflection by prepositional constructions. Prepositions will
never become case suffixes; even their development into case prefixes is relatively rare
(cf. ch. 3.4.1.3). Here it suffices to observe that the Latin case suffixes have disappeared,
but the Romance prepositions are far from truly fulfilling their function. On the one
hand, they do less than that, since strict word order comes in where prepositions (or other
means) fail. On the other hand, they do more than that, since prepositions are much more
intimately connected with the verb than are case suffixes and may be used to derive
compound verbs. Moreover, prepositions can express finer distinctions than cases can
because there are more of them. Consequently, the loss of Latin case inflection and the
introduction of prepositional constructions is renovative to the extent that the functions
of the two constructions overlap, and it is innovative to the extent that they do not.
2.5. Reinforcement
If an element is weakened through grammaticalization, there are, in fact, two
possibilities open to linguistic conservatism. The first is to give it up and replace it by a
new, but similar one. This is renovation, as we have just seen. The second is to reinforce
it, thus compensating for and checking the decay. Here are some examples: Latin aliquis
someone is reinforced by unus one, yielding *aliqui-unu; this is then grammaticalized
to Italian alcuno, French aucun etc. Latin ille, which, as we have seen, was
grammaticalized to the Romance definite article, was reinforced in its demonstrative
function: *eccu illu voil that (one) resulted in Italian quello. Many Latin prepositions
have been reinforced on their way into Romance; e.g. Latin ante in front, before was
strengthened by preposed ab from before it developed into French avant. We will
introduce a symbol for the relation of reinforcement: the reinforced form of x is y will
be written x Y y. The three symbols >, /r, and Y will also be used in the converse
relations y < x, y r/ x and y Z x.
Reinforcement can be reiterated ad libitum. For instance, IE *in in Y *en-tos > Latin
intus within, inside Y *de-intus of/from within > French dans in Y dedans inside.
Pre-Latin *is that (one) Y Latin iste that one on your side Y Proto-Romance *eccu
istu lo that one > It. questo this Y questo... qui and French ce...-ci this (one) here.
At the stage where the reinforcement is first made, it sounds to puristic ears like a
redundant accumulation,12 a hypercharacterization (on the latter, see Malkiel 1957f and
Tauli 1966, ch. IV). But the emphasis soon vanishes, and the reinforced expression
becomes neutral again.
The examples illustrate the reinforcement of an element by its morphological union with
another one. The situation becomes slightly more complicated when an expression is
reinforced not by adding an element next to the grammatical marker already present, but
at a different place in the construction. Latin non not was reinforced by passum step
in a construction *non V passu, to yield French ne V pas. The particle ne can
subsequently be dropped, and the negation pas ends up at a different position from Latin
non. Another example, which I have already used in a simplified manner, but which is
really quite complex, are the Latin-Romance prepositions. In Proto-Indo-European, we
may assume there were agglutinative case suffixes with rather specific functions. When
these got more grammaticalized, they were first specified, and thus reinforced, by
adverbs; for example, the accusativus directionis was specified by *peri around, along
> Latin per through. These adverbs were in turn grammaticalized, yielding on the one
hand preverbs and on the other adpositions. In Latin we encounter expressions such as
percurrere urbem or currere per urbem to run through the city. We neglect here the
12
Cf. the telling remark by A. Schlegel, who was the first to observe some of the above cases;
according to him (1818:30), they ne laissent pas de sentir un peu la barbarie.
2.5. Reinforcement 21
possible hypercharacterization percurrere per urbem and pay attention to the fact that in
no one of these expressions the suffix is substituted by the preposition or preverb. There
is no alternative between case suffix and preposition, such as there is between pass
simple and pass compos. We see here that what later on will result in a (partial)
renovation, begins as a complex reinforcement (cf. Jakobson 1936:55). In those many
instances where the renovative construction starts as an extension of the renovated one,
we may speak of renovation by reinforcement; whereas in the other case, where the
renovative construction syntagmatically excludes the renovated one, we may speak of
pure renovation.
On the same basis, we are led to distinguish between two types of reinforcement: simple
reinforcement consists in the morphological union of the bleached element with the
specifying one. Complex reinforcement consists in the introduction of a specifying
element in a different position of the construction. We started this chapter with simple
reinforcement; this is necessarily conservative. In complex reinforcement, however, if
the reinforcing element ousts the reinforced one, we have a source of quite novel
constructions.13 We may even speculate, since no new construction starts ab nihilo, but
necessarily uses elements of inherited constructions, that there may be a gradual
transition between reinforcement and innovation.14
13
Developments of this type are also responsible for a considerable amount of headache caused to
the historical linguist by certain grammatical formatives. How would we be able to understand the
etymology of, e.g., French pas, rien, point, personne or of Italian cosa what, if we did not know
that they arose through reinforcement (cf. ch. 3.2.2.3)?
14
The distinction between renovation, innovation and reinforcement as made here is also
postulated in Kahr 1976:115, in the terms 'renewal', 'novel creation' and 'hypercharacterization',
respectively.
3. GRAMMATICAL DOMAINS
This chapter deals with what Givn (1979) and Heine & Reh (1984) have called the
various channels of grammaticalization. The term channel graphically expresses the
fact that the fate of a category in grammaticalization is largely predetermined once we
know two things: 1) its meaning, 2) its syntactic function. These conditions are equally
necessary. Givn (1979[L]:213f) and others have emphasized condition 1, whereas
Meillet (1915f:170) had already said: c'est le rle dans la phrase qui dcide de tout.
The terms grammaticalization scale and grammaticalization channel will often be
used interchangeably. A grammaticalization scale is a theoretical construct along which
functionally similar signs types are ordered according to their degree of grammaticality
as measured by certain parameters to be discussed in ch. 4. The relation among the
elements on such a scale is panchronic. A grammaticalization channel is a frequently
recurring route which signs with a given function may take when they are gramma-
ticalized in language change. The relation among the elements in such a channel is a
diachronic one.
The aim of ch. 3 is twofold. First, a certain amount of examples of grammaticalization
will be accumulated in order to give an idea of the nature of this type of process and to
provide suitable empirical material to refer to from the more theoretical chapters to
follow. Second, although, naturally, not all parts of the grammar can be treated here, the
chapter is meant to demonstrate that grammaticalization is omnipresent and not specific
to any particular part of the grammar.
The subdivision of the material follows, in part, from the connections established by
grammaticalization channels. But as some channels cross, the presentation will
necessarily be somewhat repetitive. The amount of material presented is still greatly
reduced in comparison with the masses of evidence available for most of the channels.
It would be impossible to display it all here; the reader is referred to the cited literature.
3.1. Verbal complexes
3.1.1. Existence and possession

Verbs such as Engl. exist, possess, or Latin existere, possidere, are lexical verbs like any
other and have no particular grammatical function. But most languages have more gram-
maticalized verbs with similar meanings, verbs which roughly correspond to English be
and have.
The various forms of Engl. be, as well as of its cognates in other Indo-European
languages, go back to three different roots: PIE *bhew- become yields forms such as
Engl. be, German bin, Span. fu. PIE *Hes- exist, be in a place yields forms such as
Engl. is, German ist, Span. es. And Proto-Germanic *wes- live yields forms such as
Engl. was, German war. These are doubtless typical sources of the verb to be. He
lives is, for instance, the etymological meaning of the verb hki he is in Tunica (Haas
1941:41ff). Another source of be-verbs is to stand. This can be seen in Span./Port.
estar, French tre, which derive from Latin stare. Among the 15 auxiliaries which
irmunskij (1966:85f) cites from Usbek, there are also quj- stand, place and tur-
stand. To remain is the original meaning of the Port. verb ficar, which is currently
taking over some functions of the verb to be. These verbs are usually highly irregular
or even suppletive, which points to their grammaticalized status.
Engl. have, German haben and cognates derive from Proto-Germanic *hafjan seize.
Span. tener have meant hold in Latin. Anticipating future developments of English,
we can say that receive is another source: have (phonologically /v/ or /z/ or /d/ in the
various inflected forms) is currently reinforced by got and will soon be entirely
renovated by it. These are all, of course, common sources of the possessive verb; see
Seiler 1981:104-106.
Although there are diachronic derivational relations between be and have in many
languages, there is, interestingly, no unidirectional grammaticalization relation between
them. On the one hand, existence predications are often grammaticalized constructions
of the verb have. Thus dialectal German es hat, Span. ha(y), French il y a, all there
is/are. On the other hand, possessive predications very often contain a verb of existence:
Latin Paulo est liber Paul has a book, Mandarin wo4 yo4 u y-zh go4 u (I EXIST one-CL
dog) I have a dog; cf. also Russian est' and Japanese arimasu. This is, by the way, an
argument against reducing possession to existence or vice versa.
3.1.2. The copula

A copula is a word which turns a nominal into a predicate. This function will not be
considered here because it will be treated in subsequent sections. Here we concentrate on
the question: through which grammaticalization channels do elements arise which
function as the copula in nominal clauses? There are, in principle, two such channels.
As is familiar from Indo-European languages, a copula may be a grammaticalized be-
verb, any one of those treated in the preceding section. In this case, the copula has
obviously verbal properties, i.e. it may inflect for person, number, tense etc.; though it
may be absent when all the categories are unmarked, as it is, e.g., in Russian.
A less familiar, but equally frequent origin of the copula is a demonstrative or anaphoric
pronoun. Consider the case of the Chinese copula, as analyzed by Li & Thompson
(1977). In Archaic Chinese, nominal clauses contained no copula. The subject of a
nominal predication, especially a relatively heavy one, could be topicalized by
left-dislocation. This necessitates a substitute in the subject position of the nominal
clause, a demonstrative or personal pronoun which anaphorically takes up the topicalized
NP. The resulting nominal clause is, of course, syntactically completely unmarked. The
complex sentence structure is as follows: S[ NP S[ DEM NP ] ]. The DEM in Archaic
Chinese is sh. By the 1. cent. AD, this construction was sufficiently grammaticalized to
be reanalyzed as S[NP DEM NP]. Here sh already functions as a copula, one criterion
being that it is indifferent as to the person of the subject. About the same time, it ceases
to be used as a demonstrative, while in its copula function it becomes increasingly
obligatory.
Copulas of this origin may also be found, according to Li and Thompson, in Hebrew,
Palestinian Arabic, Wappo and Zway. Such copulas do not, of course, express verbal
categories. Since the latter are, in fact, irrelevant to them, they are also not distributed
according to marked and unmarked verbal categories, but also appear in what would
correspond to a present indicative verbal clause.
The second grammaticalization channel also admits nominal clauses which already
contain a copula, which is then reinforced by the pronoun. This is currently happening in
French. To live is to learn to die is not Vivre est apprendre mourir, but rather Vivre
c'est apprendre mourir, which is pronounced, as Frei (1929:72) insists, sans pause.
3.1.3. Modals and moods

Modal verbs or auxiliaries may, of course, derive from full verbs. In what follows, I list
some possible sources.
In the Germanic languages, many modal verbs derive from Proto-Indo-European
preterite-presents, i.e. original full verbs whose inherited perfect form was used with
stative present function. Among them are OE can(n) know, be able, sceal owe, mg
be able. These verbs developed a past tense inflection of their own, which made them
morphologically highly irregular. Their syntax was still that of common verbs in Old
English. During the Middle English period, however, they developed those syntactic
pecularities which make them constitute the syntactic category of modal verbs; and as
such the verbs can, shall, may and others appear in the 16. century. This development is
analyzed in detail by Lightfoot (1979:98ff), though he tries to do without the concept of
grammaticalization. A synchronic example for the ambivalence, or transitional status, of
a verb between full verb and auxiliary is provided by Romanian poate can; see Mallin-
son & Blake 1981:198f.
Desiderative modals such as will evolve, of course, from verbs meaning want. As also
shown by English, they may subsequently form the basis of subjunctive auxiliaries such
as would. The German equivalent is wrde, but this has a different source. The original
meaning of werden is become, and since wrde is formally subjunctive, its original
(still alive) meaning is would become. In this meaning, the verb formed constructions
such as OHG wrde lesende would become reading, with a clearly inchoative meaning.
The latter, however, disappeared in Middle High German, and in the course of
grammaticalization only the subjunctive meaning remained: would read. Once wrde
had become a sign of the subjunctive, the marked participial form of the verb was no
longer necessary. In analogy to the other modal verb periphrases, it was simplified to the
infinitive form: wrde lesen. For this account, see Ronneberger-Sibold 1980:60f. The
interesting thing about this development is the solution to the problem of reinforcing the
subjunctive mood. This was done by extracting this mood from the main verb and using
an auxiliary verb as its bearer whose lexical meaning was necessarily irrelevant since its
function was nothing more than to carry the subjunctive. This is why, in this
construction, it lost its meaning so soon. Contrast this with the formation of the
werden-future dealt with in ch. 3.1.4.
The omnipresent existence verb also forms modal constructions, chiefly obligative ones.
It combines with nominal verb forms to yield expressions of the type my going exists,
meaning I have to go. Compare Lat. mihi est eundum id., but also Yucatec Maya yan
in bin (EXIST 1.SG go) id. Once more, the functional similarity of have and be in the
existence meaning asserts itself here. Thus we have Engl. I have to go, and also Vulgar
Latin cantari habet has to be sung, which, according to Benveniste (1968, II), ultima-
tely yielded the Romance future (cf. below).
Continuing grammaticalization transforms modal verbs into affixes. Examples for the
development of desiderative and obligative modals into future markers have already been
mentioned and will yet be seen in the following section. The existence of verbal mood
affixes is known; besides the common Indo-European subjunctive suffixes, note in
particular the Sanskrit desiderative suffix -sa. What is lacking in my data is historical
evidence for their development out of modal verbs; but on the basis of the analogy to
related categories, such evidence must exist.
3.1.4. Tense and aspect

Tense and aspect are often expressed with the help of periphrastic verb constructions in
which an auxiliary is used to support a nominal main verb. The two auxiliaries which
predominate in Indo-European languages are presumably widespread everywhere: have
and be. Both are used in the analytic perfect of the Germanic and Romance languages.
For the origin of this construction, see Meillet 1912:141-143, Benveniste 1968, I,
Seiler 1973, Rosn 1980, Ramat 1983. In Persian, the auxiliary be has been aggluti-
nated to the main verb and now expresses the personal endings of the past tense verb.
Similarly, Haas (1977) demonstrates that the personal endings in the conjugation of some
Muskogean languages go back to an agglutinated auxiliary.
Heine & Reh (1984:130) show that in Africa, too, past tenses are frequently expressed
with the help of be. Following Givn (1973, 5), they posit two other possible origins:
verbs of motion, especially come; and verbs meaning to be/have finished. Both can
be exemplified from Portuguese: vem de escrever (comes from writing) has written (cf.
French vient d'crire); acaba de escrever (finishes of writing) has just written. Both of
these examples illustrate that past tenses often start out as perfects or perfective aspects;
the past meaning actually results from a further grammaticalization. The same is to be
observed in the development from the Indo-European perfect to the Germanic past and
of the Latin perfect to the Romance simple past tense. And the same is again happening
with the pass compos in French and the haben-perfect in Bavarian German.
Passing over to future tenses, we again meet have here, viz. in Latin-Romance. The
periphrastic construction infinitive of main verb + form of habere started in Vulgar
Latin, according to Benveniste (1968, II) in passive clauses, and according to Ineichen
(1980) in subordinate clauses. In the course of its expansion, the construction became
agglutinative and led to the synthetic Romance future (cf. also Coseriu 1974:132-151).
Overall, have is probably not so common a future tense auxiliary. Much more wide--
spread is go. It occurs in periphrastic futures in English and various Romance
languages, e.g. Port. vou escrever (go.1.SG write:INF) I will write. An isolated
precedence of this may be seen in the Latin passive infinitive of the future, scriptum iri
to be going to be written (cf. Ultan 1978:109-114). Go also figures in the Usbek and
Tunica auxiliary lists given in irmunskij 1966:85f and Haas 1941:41-51, respectively.
For African languages, see Givn 1973, 5 and Heine & Reh 1984:131f.
Since be is the counterpart of have in so many respects, obligative be grammatic-
alizes to future just as obligative have does. An example is provided by Yucatec Maya.
The construction yan in bin mentioned in ch. 3.1.3 is also used colloquially to mean I
will go.
Equally often, the future may arise through the grammaticalization of a desiderative
modal. English will is a known example. In 13. cent. Greek, an impersonal thlei it
wishes governs a subordinate clause introduced by n that. This is shortened to th n,
then contracted to then and, by the 16. century, yields th FUT. In Swahili, -taka want
> -ta- FUT, as illustrated in E2 (cf. Heine & Reh 1984:131).
E2. a. n-a-taka ku-la
SWAH SBJ.1. SG-PRS-want INF-eat I want to eat
b. ni-ta-ku-la
SBJ.1.SG-FUT-INF-eat I will eat (Givn 1973:916)
At a more advanced stage of grammaticalization, we find the Ancient Greek future in
-se/so-, which derives from a PIE desiderative; see Rix 1976:224f, and cf. the Sanskrit
-sa-desiderative mentioned in the preceding section.
Finally, future auxiliaries may evolve from verbs with an inchoative meaning. Givn
(1973:917) adduces the example of SiLuyana (Bantu) -tamba begin > -mba- FUT, as in
ni-mba-kela (SBJ.1.SG-FUT-work) I will work. On the other hand, we have the German
future with werden. This started at the same time and in the same construction as the
wrde-subjunctive mentioned above. Here, again, the original participle of the OHG
construction wird lesende (becomes reading) is simplified to an infinitive. However,
the inchoative meaning here is not discarded, but grammaticalized to a future meaning.
The main source of progressive aspect conjugations is a periphrastic construction
formed with the verb be plus a nominalized verb form in some locative dependence. A
typical instance of this is the Engl. she is on working > she is a-working > she is
working. Compare also the Portuguese variants est a trabalhar (stand:3.SG at work:INF;
European) and est trabalhando (stand:3.SG work:ing, Brazilian). Colloquial German

has ist am arbeiten, corresponding to the European Portuguese version. One may also be
more precise on the nature of the be-verb involved: Since the construction originally
expresses a state (position or condition, Befindlichkeit) of the subject as is
sufficiently proved by the prepositions used , the verb employed as an auxiliary, if
there is a choice, will be the verb be at a place. It could therefore be predicted that
Spanish and Portuguese use estar rather than ser in their progressive constructions. The
same can be seen in African languages. Thus, the Ewe progressive construction le vav
m' (he:is RDP:come PROG) he is coming originally expresses a location: m derives from
*me inside, so that the original meaning is he is in coming (Heine 1980:105f). In
Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979:128, 181f), the postposition -cH 'c in is converted into the
intransitive verb be in by adding stative verb inflection. The full verb is put into the
masdar, an infinitive-like verbal noun, and is constructed as the oblique complement of
the auxiliary, as shown in E3.
E3. a-x<mr-ra d-a+cH 'c-w+p'
ABKH ART-play-INF ABS.3-OBL.3.SG.NHUM+in-PRS-INDEP
he is playing (Hewitt 1979:181)

In Usbek (irmunskij 1966:86), there are four auxiliaries which may be used in the
progressive frame main verb-gerund auxiliary-gerund-inflection, e.g. in z-ib AUX-ib-
man I am writing, namely tur- stand, t sit, t lie and jur- walk about. It is
palpable how all these verbs characterize the spatial situation of the subject.
Givn (1973, 5) and Heine & Reh (1984:124-126) also point to a second source of
progressive aspect markers, namely verbs of the meaning stay, remain, keep. This
can also be exemplified from Portuguese, which uses ficar (beside estar) in progressive
constructions.
For habitual aspect/aktionsart, two sources may be mentioned. The first is a
periphrasis with the copula, as for progressive aspect. In Imbabura Quechua, the same
suffix -j which also forms simultaneous relative clauses is used on the full verb. The
resulting form is constructed as the predicate complement of the copula. Sentences such
as the one in E4 can nevertheless not be analyzed as containing a syntactically regular
free relative clause (see Cole 1982:149).
E4. Utavalu-pi trabaja-j ka-rka-ni
QUE Otavalo-LOC work-SIM.NR COP-PAST-1.SG
I used to work in Otavalo. (Cole 1982:149)
Subordinate clauses cannot contain validators (a kind of modal particle). However, in
habitual sentences such as E4, validators are possible. This shows that there is only one
clause in this construction and that non-finite verb plus copula form a periphrastic verb
form in it. What started out as a simultaneous nominalizer of clauses ends up as a verb
marker of habitual aspect.
The second source of habitual aspect are periphrases which involve the verb do.
Sentences such as E5 occur in Irish English.
E5. He does plough the field for us. (John Harris p.c.)
In Mayan languages, the predicate focus construction is mainly used in order to express
habitual aspect, as in E6 from Yucatec.
E6. puroh kaltal k-in bet-ik
YUC mere drink IMPF-ERG.1.SG do-INCOMPL
mere drinking was what I did

Here the full verb becomes non-finite, and the whole predicate is put into focus position.
The extrafocal clause reduces to a finite form of bet do, to which the nominalized
predicate is the direct object.
3.1.5. Passive and emphasis

The analytical passive with esse be, which was used, in Latin, only in the perfective
categories, replaced the synthetic forms in the Romance languages and yields such passi-
ves as Italian detto is said. This is currently being renovated with the auxiliaries
venire come and andare go. Of these, the unmarked form is viene detto is said; but
the contrast with va detto evokes the deictic potential of these auxiliaries: the former
then implies is said to the speaker, the latter is said by the speaker.
The notion of becoming is at the basis of the auxiliary which serves in German (wer-
den) and Persian (odan) passive constructions; it also appears in the English get-passi-
ve. Because of the basic meaning of the auxiliary, these passives were originally
inchoative; wird grammatikalisiert would have meant becomes grammaticalized, the
passive meaning being carried exclusively by the participial form of the main verb. With
increasing grammaticalization, however, the auxiliary loses its inchoative meaning and
becomes a mere carrier of finite verbal categories. This is another example of renovation
through complex reinforcement. For other sources of the passive, see Givn 1979[d]:85f.
As for emphatic constructions, we will mention here only the auxiliary do. There are
different types of emphatic constructions, and in at least three of them the verb do may
appear. For the first type, cf. the predicate focus construction mentioned in 3.1.4.
Second, the emphasis may not be on a particular sentence constituent, but rather the
assertion itself may be emphasized. This type is exemplified in English. According to
Traugott (1980:55), in Middle English the verb do was used as an auxiliary, apart from
causative constructions, only if a positive assertion was to be strongly emphasized. By
1700, it came to be used also when the assertion was to be questioned, that is, as an inter-
rogative auxiliary; and by 1900, it appeared also as an auxiliary in negation. The
desemanticization accompanying this expansion has led to the situation that do is
currently being used everywhere with little or no emphasis.
In the third type of emphasis, the main verb is used as a contrastive topic; and due to its
being foregrounded, it needs a substitute in the clause. This function is fulfilled by tun in
Standard German, in sentences such as Kochen tut sie nicht schlecht (lit. cooking does
she not badly). In Non-Standard German, the auxiliary tun has been generalized beyond
this context to expressions such as sie tut nicht schlecht kochen (cf. p. 102).
3.1.6. Auxiliaries and alternative sources

The discussion in ch. 3.1.2-3.1.5 has concentrated on auxiliaries and the like. We will
first sum it up and then turn briefly to alternative sources of the grammatical categories
mentioned.
The common denominator of the above developments can be characterized as follows:
main verb becomes auxiliary verb, possibly via modal verb; this then becomes a mood or
aspect marker, and the latter finally a tense marker. The most important and most
differentiated instance of this development is certainly represented by the verb be. It
starts out as a verbum substantivum, a verb of existence. Subsequently, it comes to be
used in location predications, with the meaning to be in a place. Then it appears as the
copula in nominal sentences. As such, it may be employed when the predicate is a
nominalized verb form, and in this way it ends up as an auxiliary. This development was
already posited by Meillet (1912:131), who exemplifies it as follows:
verbum substantivum: je suis celui qui suis
be in a place: je suis chez moi
copula: je suis malade
auxiliary: je suis parti
As was already mentioned with reference to Persian and Muskogean, further
grammaticalization yields inflectional endings.
The grammaticalization of full verbs to auxiliaries shows us two things. First, a piece of
methodology: The dispute on whether auxiliaries are main verbs or not (J. Ross: yes; L.
Palmer: no; R. Huddleston: yes; etc.) is fruitless. Two grammatical categories connected
on a grammaticalization scale are neither the same nor distinct. The difference between
them is gradual, and there is no clear-cut dividing line. Secondly, an empirical insight:
Grammaticalization can turn syntactic relations around. In a word combination which
contains two verb forms, one of which will become the auxiliary in an analytic
construction, this latter one starts by being the syntactic (not lexical!) main verb (cf.
Givn 1979[d]:96f), while the other, governed verb carries the major part of the lexical
meaning.15 However, only a free form can exert government. As, in the course of
15
The term 'main verb' is, unfortunately, ambiguous. In its syntactic sense, it means the governing
verb; and in this sense the auxiliary in an analytic verb phrase is the main verb, as is argued above.
In its semantic sense, it means, within an analytic verb form, that verb which carries the lexical
proceeding grammaticalization, the auxiliary loses its verbal properties, it can no longer
be said to govern the lexical verb. When it has become a tense/mood/aspect marker, it
depends on the lexical verb, which is now the main verb. Thus, the syntactic relations are
almost reversed; though not quite, because within a word there are no syntactic, but
morphological relations. We shall find (ch. 4.3.2) that this development of relations is
characteristic of grammaticalization processes. For the trouble that intermediate stages
of this development may cause to synchronic analysis, see Matthews 1981:155f.
We now turn to alternative sources of the verbal categories treated above. There appear
to be two principal ones: serial verbs and adverbs. Serial verbs will be treated in more
detail in ch. 3.4.1.7, as a source of adpositions. They have, in fact, been studied mainly
in that connection, and comparably little attention has been devoted to their aspectual or
aktionsart function.
I cannot clarify here the complex and much debated issue of the syntactic relations
among the verbs in a series. Let us assume the following definition: a serial verb
construction is the combination of two or more asyndetically juxtaposed verbs with at
least one shared argument in order to express a complex, but unitary situation. In the
course of grammaticalization of a serial verb construction, one verb in a pair undergoes
the usual symptoms of grammaticalization, becoming, in the last event, a grammatical
formative, while the other remains virtually unaffected.16 I shall refer to that member of
a series which is (destined to be) grammaticalized as the serial verb in the
construction. This terminology is based on the assumption that wherever verb
serialization occurs, there is a relatively closed class of verbs with an active serialization
potential (the serial verbs), combining with verbs from an open class which are indiffe-
rent to serialization. Such serial verbs which develop into adpositions are called
coverbs in the literature and will be dealt with in ch. 3.4.1.7.
Examples of serial verbs with aspectual function may be adduced from Niger-Congo
languages (see also Sasse 1977[G]:113-117 on Mba). In Akan (Kwa), there is a verb b
come which has developed a grammatical function as the first verb in a series (Wel-
mers 1973:353f). In this position, it has become a future marker, which is subject to
phonologically conditioned allomorphy and has become prefixed, together with its
personal prefix, to the following full verb. This is the origin of such forms as ]4 -bX-b
(3.SG-FUT-come) he's going to come or -b-dd (3.SG-FUT-eat) he's going to eat. In
Efik (Benue-Kongo), the verb m fulfill, accomplish takes the first position in a series.
Here it is grammaticalized to a neutral past marker and undergoes tonal assimilation, as
in the following examples (Welmers 1973:371): -m 'd (we-PAST we-come) we
came; m ' 'm -d (I-PAST I-come) I came.
meaning, and consequently denotes the exact opposite of the first sense. The term denoting the
second sense should probably be 'full verb'.
16
An alternative development is that a pair of verbs in a series becomes a compound verb; but this
is not grammaticalization; see ch. 5.2.
More evidence for serial verbs in aspectual function comes from Creole languages. Tok
Pisin (New Guinea) provides us with the following examples (from Mosel 1980):
E7. ol manmeri bilong Papua Niu Gini i save kaikai kaukau
TOK PL man of Papua New Guinea SBJ.3 HAB eat sweet potato
Papua New Guineans eat sweet potatoes. (Mosel 1980:108)

Portuguese provided the verb saber know, can, which has become save to do habitual-
ly in Tok Pisin. This enters verbal series as the first member and ends up as an aspectual
marker, as in E7.
English stop yields stap live, be located in Tok Pisin. This enters a verbal series as the
last member and develops into a marker of continuous action, as in E8.
E8. em i wok i stap yet
TOK he SBJ.3 work SBJ.3 CONT self
he is/was still working (Mosel 1980:108)

A similar fate has befallen English finish; this has become a postverbal completive
aspect marker in Tok Pisin:
E9. em i go pinis
TOK he SBJ.3 go COMPL
he has/had/will have gone (Mosel 1980:123)

I shall gloss over several problems in these examples. It is evident, for instance, that in
some of them the serial and the full verb each have their own personal prefixes, whereas
in others only one of them has. Furthermore, the question naturally arises as to whether
we need to treat grammaticalized serial verbs as distinct from auxiliaries or modal verbs.
All the examples seem to be interpretable in either of these two terms. This would mean
that we have only found a new source of auxiliary verbs, but not a new source of
mood/aspect/tense markers, since these would still derive from auxiliaries. Much seems
to speak in favour of this position. On the other hand, the morphological difference just
mentioned might correlate with a difference among serial, modal, and auxiliary verbs.
The latter distinction might also account for the positional differences in the last three
examples. Heine & Reh (1984:128) have an intriguing example from Ewe (Kwa). The
language has serial verb constructions in which the serial verb follows the full verb(s).
It also has auxiliaries which precede full verbs. There is a verb n] remain, stay which
has been grammaticalized to a habitual aspect marker. In standard Ewe, this is
constructed as a serial verb, e.g. me-y-na (I-go-HAB) I am in the habit of going. In the
Dahome dialect of Ewe, however, n] is constructed as an auxiliary, as in m-n]-sa
(I-HAB-sell) I am in the habit of selling.
Faced with problems such as this, I prefer to take no stand on the issue of whether (some
of) the grammaticalized serial verbs in the above examples are to be analyzed as
auxiliary or modal verbs. It suffices to say that these categories are functionally and
structurally quite similar.
We finally turn to a definitely different source of tense markers. Givn (1979[L]:218f)
raises the question whether tense/mood/aspect distinctions can arise from adverbs, and
answers it in the negative. Available evidence, however, argues for a more differentiated
hypothesis: while modal and aspect markers appear, in fact, to derive exclusively from
periphrastic verbal constructions, tenses may come from adverbs (see also Heine & Reh
1984, ch. 3.1.1.3). There are probably quite a number of languages which use a word
meaning already in the function of a past or perfect tense marker; Indonesian sudah is
one example. Future markers deriving from adverbs can be exemplified from creole
languages (Labov 1971). English by and by has yielded the free future temporal adverb
baimbai of the pidgin stage of Tok Pisin (which lacks tense). This was subsequently sim-
plified and grammaticalized to a preverbal future marker, which may cooccur with future
adverbs, as in klostu bai i dai (soon FUT SBJ.3 die) he'll die soon. In the present creole
language, it has become increasingly obligatory and is further phonologically reduced to
be (cf. also Sankoff & Laberge 1974). Spanish luego soon underwent a maximally
parallel fate in Papiamento: it was reduced to lo and became a preverbal future marker,
as in lo mi kanta (FUT I sing) I will sing. Adverbs which are grammaticalized to future
and past tense markers and adjust their position vis--vis the verb accordingly have also
been found in the Nilotic languages Luo, Lotuko and Bari (Heine & Reh 1984:130, 132).
Finally, according to an Indo-Europeanist hypothesis of long standing, the final -i
common to the so-called primary verbal desinences is an original deictic particle. While
a reconstruction, obviously, does not count as evidence, the other cases clearly show that
the development adverb tense marker must be posited as a grammaticalization
channel.
The developments discussed in the preceding sections may be summarized in F2.
F2. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of verbal categories

modal mood
verb marker
full auxiliary
verb verb
serial aspect
verb marker
adverb tense
marker
3.2. Pronominal elements

I shall not deal here with all the different kinds of pronouns. A major distinction will be
made between definite and indefinite pronominal elements. Under the category of
definite pronominal elements I will treat demonstratives, definite articles and personal
pronouns, as well as their products in grammaticalization. The heading of indefinite
pronominal elements will comprise indefinites properly speaking, indefinite articles and
interrogative pronouns, and again their grammaticalization products.
3.2.1. Definite pronominal elements

There is one type of pronoun at the root of this family, and this is the free demonstrative
pronoun. In its full, ideal form, this contains three components, two semantic and one
syntactic. First, the demonstrative element in the narrow sense, which embodies
definiteness and a pointing gesture. Second, what we may call the deictic element, which
directs the attention to something located in regard to the speech situation (speaker vs.
hearer, visible vs. invisible, etc.). Third, a categorial element, either NP or Det, which
renders the pronoun either syntactically autonomous or dependent. Of these, the deictic
component will usually be segmentally expressed at the stage of the free demonstrative
pronoun (otherwise it fuses with the demonstrative one). Either the demonstrative or the
categorial component will almost always lack expression. The Yucatec Mayan
discontinuous (or circumfixal) demonstratives express the demonstrative and the deictic
components separately. We have the following paradigm:
le NP-a' this NP
le NP-o' that NP
le NP-e' aforementioned NP
The Japanese demonstrative (and other) pronouns express the deictic and the categorial
components separately, as shown in the following paradigm:
pronoun proadjective
ko-re this one ko-no N this N
so-re that one so-no N that N
a-re yonder one a-no N yonder N
The first step in the grammaticalization of the demonstrative pronouns is the weakening
of the deictic component. Deictic distinctions tend to be neutralized, the paradigm is
reduced, and at the same time its unmarked member, namely that of third person deixis,
assumes a primarily anaphoric function. An example, Latin ille, has already been
mentioned in ch. 2.2. A case of extreme reduction is provided by Vulgar Latin *ecce hoc
ill~c lo this over there> French cela that > a it. We disregard for the moment the
fate of the more marked demonstrative pronouns (see ch. 6.3) and concentrate on the
further development of the unmarked one. There are two principal grammaticalization
channels, corresponding to whether the categorial component is NP or Det; and we will
subdivide the discussion accordingly.
3.2.1.1. Definite determiners

At the present stage of the development, we have an adnominal demonstrative pronoun
which is deictically neutral and therefore mainly used for anaphoric purposes. Examples,
besides Late Latin ille, are Gothic sa, s, ata, OE s, so, tht and Homeric h, h', to,
all deriving from PIE *so, s~, tod. Persian ~n and Japanese sono appear to be well on
their way towards this stage.
The following development has been described by Greenberg (1978) for African
languages (cf. also Givn 1978, 3), but it occurs in languages all over the world. The
demonstrative component is gradually reduced to mere definiteness, and the result is a
definite article. We thus get French le, la, OHG ther, thiu, thaz, Engl. the and Attic ho,
h, to. Further grammaticalization agglutinates the article to the noun. Suffixed articles
occur in Romanian, Swedish, Danish, Basque, Ijo (Kwa), Koyo (Kru) and Yuman
languages such as Mohave, Diegueo and Yavapai. Prefixed articles occur in Abkhaz
(Caucasian) and Arabic vernaculars. The Swedish case illustrates that while the definite
article is typically in opposition to a demonstrative, a definite affix starts cooccurring
with other definite elements.
At this stage, further semantic weakening leads to a reduction of definiteness to
specificity. This is largely true for the Abkhaz article and for the suffixed article of
Dagbani (Gur). If this last bit of referential meaning is lost, too, we are left with the
categorial component of the erstwhile demonstrative. That is, the element then signals
only that the word it is attached to is a noun, and can therefore still be used as a
nominalizer (which is an important function of the definite article, anyway). See
Greenberg 1978, 3.5 on the nominalizing -s of Plateau Penutian.
If the demonstrative pronoun which is at the beginning of this process expresses any
noun class or gender distinctions the primary locus of which is, in fact, the pronoun
, then these will go all the way along, and when the specificity of the article is lost,
they will be left as noun class markers. This appears to be a plausible account of the
genesis of nominal gender or class markers as they occur, for instance, in Bantu
languages (details in Lehmann 1982[U], 7.2).
3.2.1.2. Personal pronouns

We go back again to the stage of Early Latin is, Late Latin ille, Gothic sa, Homeric h
and Bambara . One thing that often happens to such anaphoric pronouns with a slight
demonstrative force is that they come to be used as relative pronouns. This happened, for
instance, to OHG ther and to Homeric h. The development is treated in detail in Leh-
mann 1984, ch. VI.1.1.2 and 1.2.2. Although this is a deviation from the main channel,
it certainly is a grammaticalization, since the pronoun loses its demonstrative force and
definiteness (cf. Lehmann 1984, ch. V.2.3, 2) and becomes syntactically obligatory in
a certain construction.
Returning to the main thread, we find the pronouns here losing their demonstrative force,
too. The result is a free personal pronoun as exemplified by Proto-Romance *illu, Engl.
he or German er. The latter two derive, in fact, from the PIE demonstrative *ei-s which
also yielded Latin is. Having thus arrived at a third person pronoun, let us now turn to
first and second person pronouns and discuss briefly their possible origin.
New pronouns, especially for the second person singular, are often obtained by shifting
pronouns around in the paradigm, especially by substituting marked forms for unmarked
ones. This explains, e.g., the use of German Sie, French vous and English you for the
second person singular (see Syromjatnikov 1980:112 for Japanese). Again, a new first
person plural pronoun is being formed in French and Portuguese by what has so far been
the non-specific indefinite pronoun one, namely on and a gente, respectively. Here
grammaticalization plays no part.
However, new forms may also come from outside the paradigm; nouns may be
grammaticalized to pronouns. In Spanish, vuestra merced your grace has yielded the
honorific second person pronoun usted, whose plural ustedes has already ousted, in
South America, the original plain form vos(otros). The Portuguese product of vossa
merc, voc, is used in most parts of Brasil instead of the original tu.17 Japanese provides
the following examples: watakusi lit. my private affair > watasi I (hon.); boku
(Chinese loan) slave > I; Old Jap. kimi lord > you (hon.) > thou; anata lit. that
part > you (hon.); omae (HON:front) > thou (vulg.) (from Syromjatnikov 1980 and
Yoshiko Ono, p.c.). Vietnamese ti I comes from a word meaning subject (Wilfried
Kuhn, p.c.). The Indonesian saya I derives from a literate word sahaya servant
(which in turn comes from Sanskrit sah~ya assistant); and tuan you (hon.) is an
original Arabic loan meaning master (Gabelentz 1901:152). In East-Asia, the use of
relational nouns instead of personal pronouns whenever there is a personal relation bet-
ween the discourse participants is wide-spread and liable to yield rich material for the
grammaticalization origin of first and second person pronouns.
We see that personal pronouns derive from two entirely different sources: whereas those
of the third person come from demonstratives, those of the first and second persons come
from nouns of social relations. There is no a priori reason why the grammaticalization
processes which lead to these two kinds of personal pronouns should take a parallel
course. It is therefore no wonder that we find many languages where the third person
pronouns are not well integrated into the paradigm. Several of the ancient Indo-European
languages are examples of this, as their third person pronouns retain a slight
demonstrative force which is, of course, absent from the first and second person
pronouns. And there are quite a number of languages which are conventionally said to
lack third person pronouns altogether, a situation which we might rephrase by saying that
17
In Rio de Janeiro, even dogs are addressed by voc.
what would be the third person pronouns are either too little or too much
grammaticalized to be able to fulfill that function. Such languages are Walbiri, Dyirbal,
Mangarayi (North Australia; Merlan 1982:99), Japanese, Lakhota (Sioux) and Basque.
This situation repeats itself in the personal affixes of many languages: there are
paradigms in which the third person (singular) affix is zero (although this may also be
explained by its semantic unmarkedness). On the other hand, the genetic and functional
difference of the two kinds of pronouns does not necessarily prevent them from forming
an integrated paradigm and behaving maximally similar, as they do, for instance, in
English, German, Russian, Arabic, Turkish and Chinese. Such paradigmatic differences
will be disregarded in what follows. For more details on the subsequent development,
see Lehmann 1982[U], 6.2 and 7.1.
When personal pronouns are deaccentuated, they become clitic, usually either in
Wackernagel's position or to the word which governs them. Examples are the oblique
pronouns le, la etc. in Italian, French and Spanish or the forms ne, se, s of Northern
Substandard German (e.g. Ich habe ne/se/s doch gestern gesehen! But I saw him/her/it
yesterday!). Such forms are frequently phonologically reduced in comparison with
eventually coexisting stressed forms. While full personal pronouns may have the same
distribution as lexically headed NPs, clitic pronouns are often confined to certain
positions. Many languages, such as Modern Greek and Romance languages, have a set
of primary prepositions which require a full NP or personal pronoun as their complement
and do not accept a clitic pronoun.
Clitic pronouns become fillers of syntactic positions which may not be left open. In
Italian, for instance, if the direct object is topicalized by left-dislocation, it must be
represented in the clause by a clitic pronoun, as in Giovanni, l'ho visto ieri. John, I saw
(him) yesterday. (cf. Mallinson & Blake 1981:154). In Spanish, the clitic object pronoun
may even cooccur with a nominal object within a clause, as in Ayer lo vi a Juan.
Yesterday I saw John. At this stage, the pronoun potentially loses its anaphoric function
and becomes an agreement marker. At about the same time, it turns from a clitic into
an affix (cf. Humboldt 1836:496f on this phase of the development). In this way, the
carrier of the affix acquires the morphological categories of person, number and
gender/noun class.18 Simplifying somewhat, we call these personal affixes. They may
appear on verbs (for subject, direct and indirect object), nouns (for the possessor) and
adpositions (for the complement). There are a number of languages such as Navaho,
Abkhaz or Arosi, which have all three of these types. E10 contains examples from
Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979:105, 116, 103).
18
On p. 25 it was mentioned that a verb may acquire such categories through the agglutination of
an auxiliary which possesses them. Ultimately, however, this is probably not an alternative, since
the auxiliary, in turn, must have acquired these categories somehow.
E10. a. (sar) a-x/c'-k/ a-/q/'-k/ - rc

!- s- to -yt'.
ABKH I ART-child-PL ART-book-PL ABS IO ERG give -INDEP
3.PL- 3.PL.HUM- 1.SG- DYN
I give the books to the children
b. -'k/'cn yc- y/nc
!
ART-boy OBL.3.SG.M-house
the boy's house

c. a-yc
! yas a-q'+nc
!
ART-river OBL.3.SG.NHUM-at
at the river
In the cases cited, the personal agreement affixes may still function (anaphorically) as
personal pronouns, when no NP is present in the same construction. Further semantic
weakening makes them lose this ability, and they become entirely conditioned by
agreement. The personal endings of the finite verb in French, Russian and German illu-
strate this stage of the development. If grammaticalization proceeds further, the personal
agreement affixes become invariable markers. The subject affixes of the verb become
elements which identify the category verb or the constituent predicate, and its object
affixes become transitivity markers. Both these developments have occurred to the
erstwhile pronouns he and him, respectively, in Tok Pisin. The resulting invariable mor-
phemes, the preverbal i- and the postverbal -im, are exemplified in E11.
E11. Man i-mek-im singsing
TOK man SBJ.3-make-TR spell
Men utter a spell (Sankoff 1977:67f)
This is the final stage in the grammaticalization of personal pronouns before their
disappearance.
3.2.1.3. Reflexive pronouns

The grammaticalization of reflexive pronouns has been studied recently by Faltz (1977,
esp. ch. IV), Edmondson (1978:640-647; largely based on Faltz) and Strunk (1980).
Several of my examples are drawn from these sources, and the following discussion, too,
is indebted to them. Just as it would be difficult to formulate a common grammatical
denominator for all the different phenomena arranged on a grammaticalization scale
together with personal pronouns and treated in the preceding section, so it is difficult to
find a single grammatical denominator for all the phenomena which are commonly called
reflexive and which we will again find to be arranged on a grammaticalization scale.
Their common denominator lies precisely in the fact that they are connected by a
grammaticalization channel, this in turn being determined by a function which might be
roughly characterized as marking identity with or back reference to an entity involved in
the same proposition (sentence or clause); cf. Plank 1979[E].
I will simplify the discussion a bit by assuming the following four categories,
enumerated here in the order of increasing grammaticalization:
(i) autophoric nouns, e.g. Sanskrit ~tmn soul;
(ii) reflexive nouns, e.g. English self;
(iii) reflexive pronouns, e.g. German sich oneself;
(iv) verbal reflexives, e.g. Russian -sja.
It does not need to be emphasized that the boundaries between these categories are fluid.
There is a whole set of notions centering around the person, as a whole or in part, which
are generalized in many languages to comprise the self and which I call autophoric.
Typical examples are Sanskrit tan' body, person and ~tmn breath, soul, Buginese
elena body, Okinawan dna body, !Xu l'esi body, Basque burua head, Abkhaz
a-xc4 the head. In their respective languages, all these nouns are translation equivalents
of English self. As relational nouns, they are often accompanied by a (reflexive)
possessive pronoun. Typical examples from Vedic (Delbrck 1888:207f) are:
E12. ut svy~ tanv~! ?
sm vade tt
VED and POSS.REFL:INST.SG.F self:INST. SG.F together speak:I that:ACC.SG.N
and I converse thus with myself (RV 7,86,2)

E13. ?
blam ddh~na ~tmni
VED strength:ACC.SG.M put:PART.PF.MID self:LOC.SG
putting strength in myself (RV 9,113,1)
At the other end of the spectrum, Old Indic makes use of a middle voice, which will be
discussed below.
The difference between an autophoric and a reflexive noun in the present conception is
mainly one of transparency or etymologizability. That is, autophoric nouns are ordinary
nouns with free non-reflexive uses; reflexive nouns are nouns meaning self and nothing
else. Examples are German selbst, Latin ipse, Spanish mismo, Italian stesso, Finnish itse,
Hungarian magan, Turkish kendi, Japanese zibun and Yucatec bah. Some illustrative
sentences are:
E14. a. Ich komme selbst
GERM I am coming myself
b. Wollen Sie die Karten fr sich selbst? (cf. E15)
E15. Halu-at-ko lipu-t itse-lle-si?
FINN want-2.SG-INT ticket-ACC.PL self-ALL-POSS.2.SG
Do you want the tickets for yourself?

Reflexive nouns are a heterogeneous class. In some languages, for instance Finnish,
Hungarian, Turkish and Yucatec, they take possessive affixes, just like autophoric nouns
(cf. Engl. myself, yourself). In others, such as German or the Romance languages, they
are not normally combined with possessive pronouns. Again, in some languages such as
Japanese and Yucatec, a reflexive noun can by itself function as a reflexive pronoun; in
others such as German, Latin and the Romance languages, a reflexive noun can only
accompany appositively a reflexive pronoun or another noun in order to emphasize the
identity. Reflexive nouns of the latter subtype are formally similar or identical to the
(pro-)noun of identity, same; this is so with German selb-, Italian stesso, Spanish
mismo. They are somewhat marginal to the grammaticalization channel; but they may
enter it if used in reinforcement; see below.
Reflexive pronouns function syntactically like ordinary personal pronouns. Examples
are German sich, Russian sebja, Latin-Romance se, si, soi. Because of their primary
function to refer back to the subject, reflexive pronouns normally lack a nominative.
Instead, an appositive reflexive noun will normally appear, as in E14.a above. Just as
ordinary personal pronouns have reflexive counterparts, so ordinary possessive pronouns
may have reflexive counterparts. Examples are Latin suus (as opposed to eius),
Portuguese seu (as opposed to dele) and Russian svoj (as opposed to ego). As these
examples show, the proper possessive pronouns may be inherently reflexive, while the
non-reflexive forms are in fact genitives of the personal pronouns.
Verbal reflexives are verb affixes expressing that the action somehow affects the
subject. Examples are:
E16. ocuk y2ka-n-d2.
TURK child wash-REFL-PAST
The child washed himself. (Wendt 1972 :156)

E17. jalar? -bu-yi-ni ? ?l andi
na-
MANG hard 3.SG-hit-REFL-PAST N.INST-stick
He hit himself hard with a stick. (Merlan 1982:135)

E18. khrmatist!s hotos
GREEK businessman:NOM.SG.M D1:NOM.SG.M
lli anaphan'setai khrmatizmenos

other:DAT.SG.M show:FUT:MID.3.SG trade:PART.PRS.MID:NOM.SG.M
this businessman will appear to acquire for somebody else
(Pl. Gor. 7, 452)
The verb forms in E16-E18 are opposed to unmarked active verb forms: thus compare
y2ka-d2 he washed with E16, bu-ni he hit with E17 and anaphan'sei he will show
and khrmatzn trading with E18. Following traditional terminology, I have dubbed
the affixes in Turkish and Mangarayi reflexive, but the Greek affix middle (voice).
There is, in fact, a structural difference in that the reflexive affixes here come near the
verbal stem and are almost derivational, whereas the morphological category of middle
in Greek is amalgamated with the personal desinences. On the other hand, the Turkish
and Greek categories have in common that both are largely ambiguous between reflexive
and passive, while the Mangarayi category is ambiguous between reflexive and
reciprocal. In all three languages, the reflexive fills the position of a voice or
valence-changing verbal derivation. Reflexive suffixes with similar function occur in
Swedish (-s) and Quechua (mostly -ku, but -ri in Imbabura, Cole 1982:90f).
This type is to be distinguished from a reflexive affix which fills the position of a
personal (agreement) affix on the verb, as it occurs, for instance, in Swahili (ji-), Abkhaz
(cH c-, Hewitt 1979:77), Italian and Portuguese (-se). Examples are:
E19. a. a-li-ji-ona
SWAH SBJ.CL1-PAST-OBJ.REFL-see he saw himself
b. a-li-mw-ona
SBJ.CL1-PAST-OBJ.CL1-see he saw him
E20. a. vende-se
PORT sells-REFL sells itself (i.e. is for sale)
b. vende-me
sells-me sells me
However, these morphological differences need not coincide with semantic differences.
Thus, both in Greek and in Portuguese the reflexive and the passive are not clearly
distinguished; and furthermore there are many reflexive verbs whose meaning differs
minimally from that of the corresponding active verb. A Greek example can be seen in
E18, where khrmatizmenos may be substituted by khrmatzon without much
consequence. An example from Portuguese is lembrar-se = lembrar to recall.
As the examples may have rendered plausible, these four categories of reflexive
elements are in fact on a scale of increasing grammaticality. We have yet to present
evidence for diachronic transitions between these stages. In doing this, I will also
comment on some of the semantic differences associated with the structural ones.
The transition from an autophoric to a reflexive noun may be illustrated by Arabic nafs.
In Classical Arabic this is an autophoric noun with the lexical meaning soul. In Cairene
Egyptian Colloquial Arabic it has become a reflexive noun with obligatory possessive
suffixes, which regularly functions as a reflexive pronoun (Gary & Gamal-Eldin 1982:
80f). Probably Hungarian magan is another example, as it appears to be etymologically
related to mag kernel.
I have no examples for an accomplished transition from a reflexive noun to a reflexive
pronoun, that is, no examples of a stage where a reflexive pronoun stemming from a
reflexive noun can no longer be apposed to a noun to emphasize the identity of reference.
However, the examples mentioned from Finnish, Hungarian and Arabic illustrate such a
change underway. So there is reason to doubt Faltz's assertion (1977:236-238) that the
change does not occur.
There is probably an alternative source for reflexive pronouns (according to Faltz 1977:
248- 266 it would be the only one), namely same-subject markers. These are pronominal
elements representing the subject of a clause and expressing that it is the same as the one
of the preceding clause. Grammaticalization would reduce the structural scope of this
device to a single clause. In view of the development of the personal pronoun sketched
in the preceding section and of general considerations of grammaticalization (see
ch. 4.3.1), this would seem to be a plausible development, though it would more
probably result in verbal reflexives than in free reflexive pronouns. Due to empirical
uncertainty, I will leave the issue at that.
The development of verbal reflexives out of reflexive pronouns is well attested.
Deaccentuation is a common fate of reflexive as of other personal pronouns. Thus,
the Indo-European reflexive *swe became the enclitic -za in Hittite (the a is purely
orthographic) and the prefixal he- in Greek. The Latin reflexive pronouns se became
clitic in the Romance languages, and the Russian reflexive pronoun sebja (REFL:ACC)
was reduced to -sja. Sometimes, as in Russian or in French soi, the original form subsists
beside the reduced one. The latter then tends to become affixal, normally to the verb.
Hittite -za in postinitial position is definitely a minority here. In Italian, Spanish and
Portuguese, se may be either proclitic or enclitic (and subsequently suffixal) to the verb.
Russian -sja occurs exclusively as a verb suffix. Jespersen (1922:377) adduces the
following example: Old Norse finna dik find themselves (or each other) > finnask >
finnast > finnaz > Swedish finnas are found.
All the above verbal reflexives have a pronominal source. I know nothing about the
genesis of the diathetic verbal reflexives exemplified above for Turkish, Mangarayi,
Greek and Quechua (see, however, Szemernyi 1970:305-309 on the Indo-European
middle).
As reflexive pronouns shift from representatives of NPs with a special semantosyntactic
feature to markers of a verbal category, they are commonly reduced to middle voice
markers, that is, more or less general intransitivizers (Faltz 1977:268f). The semantic
development to be posited here may be illustrated by the following series of examples
from Russian:
Myt'sja wash oneself: Here a transitive action affects an object which is identical to the
subject.
Kusat'sja bite (intr.): Here the object is not identical to the subject. There is, in fact, no
object; the action abides in the sphere of the subject. The reflexive marker renders
the verb intransitive.
Brat'sja take (for oneself), idtis' go (away): Here the reflexive marker does not
change the transitivity of the underlying active verb, can even be attached to
intransitive verbs and expresses only an autistic nuance in the action of the subject.
Smejat'sja laugh, bojat'sja be afraid (< fear oneself), ostat'sja remain: These are
reflexiva tantum, where the reflexive marker is obligatory and therefore nearly
meaningless. At this stage, we also find morphologically conditioned alternation
between reflexive and non-reflexive verb forms, e.g. stat' (perf.) vs. stanovit'sja
(impf.) place oneself, become.
Most of these examples could be doubled by synonyms from other Indo-European
languages. They occur with the free reflexive pronoun of German, the clitic reflexive
pronouns in Romance and the flexional Greek middle voice; recall the comments on the
Greek example E18. This shows that the semantic continuum is not neatly matched by a
morphological continuum. To expect this would be expecting too much. We must be
content to find tendencies. What we can say is that the semantic transition from the
notion of an action affecting the subject along the above stages to zero takes place in the
morphological zone from a reflexive pronoun via a verbal reflexive to zero. The
approximativity of the correlation is also due to the fact that the semantic phenomena
themselves are partly dependent on particular verbal meanings. That is, the transition is
not one of pure grammaticalization, but involves some lexicalization.
One phenomenon exhibiting a correlation between the semantic and morphological
scales may, however, be mentioned. It concerns the difference between the first of the
above semantic stages (myt'sja) and the subsequent ones. Edmondson (1978:646f) posits
the following situation: a semantically bivalent verb in an ergative language has a
reflexive object. Then with several languages which leave a choice in the expression of
the reflexivity, and also cross-linguistically, the following can be observed: If the object
is represented by a reflexive noun or free reflexive pronoun, the subject is in the ergative,
which means that the verb is syntactically transitive. If there is a verbal reflexive, the
subject is in the absolutive, which means that the verb has been detransitivized.
The examples which I have adduced show reflexive elements unmarked for person, and
thus possibly referring to the third person. Some languages have reflexive pronouns for
the other persons as well. In Greek we have me me and se you (ACC), but meautn
me myself and seautn you yourself. However, the less differentiated system in
which the unmarked pronouns of first and second person are also used in the reflexive
function, seems to be more widespread. An alternative, but equally economical
development, which often accompanies the grammaticalization of a reflexive element to
a verbal reflexive, is the generalization of the form which is unmarked for person to the
first and second persons. A notable example is Russian; the paradigm runs as follows:
ja mojus' I wash myself
ty mojesja you wash yourself
on mojetsja he washes himself
with the allomorphs -s' - -sja being phonologically conditioned. The same phenomenon
occurs in the Russian reflexive possessive pronoun; svoj his (own) may be substituted
for moj my and tvoj your if reflexitivity is involved in the possessive relationship. The
same is true for Sanskrit sv. Tendencies to use the unmarked se instead of the first and
second person pronouns have also been observed in substandard French by Frei (1929:
147). His examples are in E21.
E21. a. On nous prie de s'adresser vous.

FREN One asks us to address ourselves to you.
b. Nous se reverrons.
We shall meet again.
c. Veuillez, Monsieur, nous faire le plaisir de s'en occuper.
Will you, sir, do us the favor to take care of it.
d. Vous se privez.
You deprive yourself.
The generalization of the unmarked reflexive pronoun is the first in a long series of
phenomena which raise the intricate question of the difference between grammaticali-
zation and analogical extension. On the one hand, it would be easy enough to argue that
what we have here is analogical extension. On the other hand, the semantic bleaching of
the reflexive element causes it to no longer signify features of a referential entity (or an
NP), but rather features of the action (or of the verb), and this involves the loss of the
category of person. I will content myself with having stated the problem and not try to
solve it here. There will be ample discussion of it in ch. 5.4.
A last feature in the development of reflexive elements which commands attention is
their frequent reinforcement. I have said above that reflexive nouns are often used in
apposition to reflexive pronouns, as in E14.b. This is essentially an emphatic,
intensifying use, and it is therefore no wonder that reflexive pronouns are commonly
reinforced by reflexive nouns. The Indo-European reflexive *swe- had yielded atonic he-
in Proto-Greek. This was reinforced by the reflexive noun auts to yield Greek heauts
he himself. Latin se is itself a renovation (probably via complex reinforcement, see
ch. 2.5) of the Indo-European middle voice. Like other personal pronouns, it was
commonly intensified by the meaningless suffix -met or by ipse self or by both, e.g.
semet ipsum. In Vulgar Latin, this was again strengthened by putting ipse in the
superlative: *semet ipsimum. This becomes *se medesimo > Port. se mesmo, Span. se
mismo. A series of reinforcements of the reflexive is also reconstructed for Southern
Paiute in Langacker 1977:107. Speakers feel the necessity of such renovations whenever
the reflexive element characterizes merely the action rather than the identity of some
actant; then the latter is underscored by apposing a reflexive noun. Cf. especially Faltz
1977:238-244 and Strunk 1980:329-334.
3.2.2. Indefinite pronominal elements

Overall, indefinite pronominal elements play a much weaker role in the grammar than
definite ones, mainly because they don't relate to the context. Indefinite pronominal
elements contain a semantic component which says that the entity meant is not identical
with anything established in the current universe of discourse. In addition, there is a
categorial component classifying the word as either a determiner or an NP. In
contradistinction to definite pronominal elements, the categorial component is often
represented by a morpheme of its own; cf. Engl. some vs. someone, which vs. who.
I shall treat here the following types of indefinite pronominal elements: interrogative
pronouns, indefinite pronouns, negative pronouns and indefinite articles.
3.2.2.1. Interrogative pronouns

In a normal pronominal question, the interrogative pronoun is in focus position. This can
be proved by the cleft-sentences which it requires or favors in many languages, e.g. in
French (see Sasse 1977[n], and cf. fn. 42, p. 103). In Japanese, the focus marker ga is
applied to interrogative subjects. This function of the interrogative pronoun has the
consequence that it is normally an accentuated free form. There is thus little room for
variation, and a more grammaticalized interrogative pronoun would cease to be an
interrogative pronoun. This would also seem to account for the amazing diachronic
persistency evinced by interrogative pronouns. Thus, the forms reconstructable for
Indo-European, *kwi-s who and *kwi-d what, have survived into most of the modern
languages despite eventual sound changes. However, in some cases they have been
reinforced. The French cleft-structures qui est-ce qui/que and qu'est-ce qui/que may be
interpreted as reinforced interrogative pronouns. They are in fact well on their way to
becoming new interrogative pronouns /ki,ski, ki,sk/ and /k,ski, k,sk/, respectively. In
Italian, the neuter che what has been reinforced by cosa thing. The resulting che cosa
is currently being reduced to cosa. This shows a possible source for interrogative
pronouns.
When they are not in focus position and deaccentuated, interrogative pronouns may lose
their interrogative force and become mere indefinite pronouns. Examples: Greek ts, t
who, what as opposed to tis, ti someone, something. The Latin interrogatives quis,
quid, when atonic, may function as indefinites in certain clause types. Similarly, the
German interrogatives wer, was are employed, in the substandard language, as indefini-
tes. The same applies, finally, to man, m~ of Classical Arabic.
3.2.2.2. Indefinite pronouns

Indefinite pronouns arise from a lot of different sources. The first has just been
mentioned in the preceding paragraph: interrogatives, when atonic, may be used as
indefinites. A second source is provided by the numeral one. Just like other nominal
determiners, it may be used either as a determiner or as an NP. We leave its
determinative function for p. 46 and observe here its role in the construction of indefinite
pronouns. German einer, Italian and Spanish uno and Abkhaz a-k'(c) are relevant
examples. One in its turn may come from a noun meaning single (IE *oinos). Instead
of taking the detour via the numeral one, such nouns may also directly be used in
indefinite pronouns. Examples are Nahuatl tlaa something < itlaa thing and the nouns
in Engl. somebody and something.
In the Indo-European area it is generally the case that a language has more than one
paradigm of indefinite pronouns. Complex, more or less emphatic indefinites may be
built up by combining single ones either with each other or with yet other pronominal
elements. The English words formed with a determinative indefinite pronoun some or
any and a nominal head have already been mentioned. The German forms jemand
(ever:man:0) someone and jemals (ever:time:ADVR) ever have an analogous
structure. These may in turn be reinforced by irgend any to yield irgend jemand, irgend
etwas; but irgend may also be combined directly with the more basic atonic
interrogative-indefinites to yield the whole paradigm of irgendwer anyone, irgendwann
any time etc. Similarly, the Latin interrogative-indefinite quis and the other pronouns
of its paradigm may be reinforced by ali- other to yield aliquis someone etc.
Alternatively, the reinforcement may be done by suffixing quam how Y quisquam
anybody19 or by reduplication Y quisquis whoever; and there are yet other possibili-
ties.
Another widely favored way of forming complex indefinites is by using the numeral
one as a nominal head and expanding it by determinative indefinite elements. Typical
examples are English someone and anyone, corresponding to German irgendeiner. One
may also be combined with indefinites which are already complex. Thus Latin aliquis Y
Vulgar Latin *aliqui-unu > Ital. alcuno someone (cf. French aucun). Similarly, Latin
qualis which + quis yielded Vulgar Latin *quali-qui > Ital. qualche, French quelque.
These function as adjectives and are combined with one to yield the substantival
indefinites qualcuno, quelqu'un. Much could be added here about the formation and fate
of meaning whoever, every(one) etc. It will appear from this exemplification that
indefinite pronouns are a particularly rich field of continuous reinforcements by ever
new combinations of old material.
As for the non-specific human indefinite pronoun one, two sources have been found.
The first is, once more, the numeral one, as in English. This occurs also in Cairene
Colloquial Arabic (Gary & Gamal-Eldin 1982:79). The other source are nouns with the
general meaning person. Compare French on < *hom man, German man id., Ital. la
gente the people and Abkhaz a-way/c ART-man/person (Hewitt 1979:157f).
While definite, namely personal, pronouns generally have a strong tendency to become
clitic and affixal to the term governing them, mostly the verb, such advanced
19
Analogs to this occur in Japanese (suffix -mo and Imbabura Quechua (suffix-pash, Cole
1982:131).
grammaticalizations have been little observed in the case of indefinite pronouns. I am

aware of two cases of (former) indefinite pronouns filling the position of a personal verb
affix. The Nahuatl indefinite pronoun tlaa something may be incorporated into the verb
in direct object position, as in E22.
E22. ni-k-neki in ti-tla-kwa-s.
NAH SBJ.1-OBJ.3-want SR SBJ.2-OBJ.IND-eat-FUT
I want you to eat (something). (Misteli 1893:118)

In Abkhaz, there is an indefinite pronoun a-k'c
! something, which is identical to the
numeral one and which may be expanded to a-k'c ! -r anything (Hewitt 1979:158). A
reduced form of this may appear in the absolutive prefix position of a few verbs, as in
E23.
E23. (a+)k'rc-y-f-yt'
ABKH ABS.ART+IND-ERG.3.SG.M-eat.DYN-INDEP
he's eating (Hewitt 1979:220)
In both of these examples, the morphological grammaticalization is matched by a
semantic one, since there is no emphasis on an indefinite object, but rather the verb is
detransitivized by this device.
So far we have dealt with substantival indefinite pronouns only. I will not comment here
on the various morphological differences which often separate indefinite determiners
from substantival pronouns. However, just as the definite pronominal elements take a
different course, accordingly as they are NPs or determiners, developing into articles in
the latter case, the same happens with indefinite pronouns, which also develop into arti-
cles when adnominal. In the most widely known examples, it is the numeral one which
becomes an indefinite article (for a recent treatment see Givn 1981). The English,
German and Romance cases are too well-known to require exemplification here. The
same phenomenon occurs in Persian (yek), Turkish (bir) and many other languages. The
phonological weakening which separates English a(n) from one is noteworthy, as it is an
outer sign of the grammaticalization performed. Similarly, the possibility to pluralize
Spanish un (unos) marks the grammatical distance from the numeral un(o).
I have been implying here that the development in question passes through the stages
numeral one > (determinative) indefinite pronoun > indefinite article (cf. Heine & Reh
1984:273). One may ask what the evidence for the intermediate stage is. Why not simply
pass from the numeral to the article, as most linguists have assumed? The reasons are
both theoretical and empirical. Theoretically, we may posit, on the basis of the facts
ascertained about definite pronominal elements, the following proportion: Just as an
adnominal demonstrative does not directly change into a definite article, but passes
through the intermediate stage of a deictically unmarked determiner (e.g. Vulgar Latin
ille, German dr), so the numeral one does not directly become an indefinite article, but
passes through the intermediate stage of a numerically neutral indefinite determiner.
Numerically neutral does not mean that more than one may be meant, but that the
opposition to the other cardinal numbers is lost. If this assumption is correct, we should
expect there to be indefinite articles coming from indefinite pronouns other than those
based on the numeral one. Such cases do exist. The English atonic some, often
linguistically rendered as sm, is a first example. A more convincing one comes from
Kobon (Davies 1981). There is an indefinite pronoun ap some, usable as a substantive
or a determiner, which is unrelated to the numeral one and may even cooccur with it
(o.c. 150), but which possibly comes from a former interrogative what (nhn what
would then be a renovation, at the side of an who; o.c. 8). This is regularly used as an
obligatory postnominal indefinite article, as in ni ap a boy (o.c. 60). It may also be
combined with a partitive morpheme rmn-i to yield rmnap
i some, which is preferably
used with mass nouns, as in hali rmnap
i some greens (o.c. 151). So this is a piece of
empirical evidence to prove that the grammaticalization stage immediately preceding the
indefinite article is an adnominal indefinite pronoun, which may in turn come from the
numeral one.
In ch. 3.2.1.2 we observed that the main grammaticalization channel of the definite
pronominal elements allowed for a side-channel which led to relative pronouns. The
same repeats itself with the indefinite pronominal elements. Interrogative-indefinites are
often used as relative pronouns, especially in preposed relative clauses. Examples are
again IE *kwis, which yielded the Hittite and Latin relative pronouns kwis and qui,
respectively, and Bambara (Mande) mn. The grammaticalization of the indefinite to the
relative pronouns involves the loss of the indefiniteness feature; since relative pronouns
are mere place-holders, they are neither definite nor indefinite. Further details in Leh-
mann 1984, Kap. V.2.3, 2.
3.2.2.3. Negative indefinites

Pronouns equivalent to Engl. nobody, nothing are mostly either formed by a negator plus
an indefinite pronoun, or the negator is directly combined with an element from the same
source that also feeds the indefinites. As for the first alternative negation appears to be
the principal context in many languages which allows atonic interrogatives to be used as
indefinites, the negator and the interrogative-indefinite then frequently coalescing to a
negative pronoun. Thus, from the volitive negation n plus quis we get Latin nquis
nobody; and in an exactly parallel fashion we get Mangarayi ijag ija (VOL.NEG
who) nobody (Merlan 1982:36, 119).20 Non-interrogative indefinites are at the basis of
German niemand (NEG:someone) no one, nie(mals) (NEG:ever) never etc., and
similarly of Latin numquam never etc. Cf. also French aucun (...ne). The numeral one
is also used; cf. English no one, Ital. nessuno, Span. ninguno etc.
Lexical nouns seem to be exploited to a greater degree in the formation of negative
indefinites than of plain indefinites, which would be explicable as a consequence of the
20
I cannot dwell here on the role of volition in this context nor on the obvious similarity not
noted by Merlan between the volitive negation and the word for who.
greater emphasis commonly associated with the former. Thus, while English nobody,
nothing do correspond to plain indefinites formed with the same nouns, Latin nemo, nihil
and German nichts do not have such counterparts. Ne + ho/emo man yields nemo
nobody, ne + hilum fiber > nihilum > nihil nothing, OHG ni + wiht-s (NEG + thing--
GEN) > German nichts nothing.
While these forms, even if synchronically not fully analyzable, clearly contain a negative
(sub)morphemic unit, we also find negative indefinites which are analyzable, but contain
no trace of a negator. The better known cases21 are French personne, rien etc., the former
of quite recent origin, the latter going back to Vulgar Latin rem thing. In the literary
style, these are still combined with the negator ne; but they retain their negative meaning
even in isolation and will certainly outlive ne.
If negative pronouns are further grammaticalized, they commonly become negators.
Thus, Latin nihil nothing > nil and Spanish nada id. are often used in the sense of not
(in the least). The Latin negator non originates in the combination *ne-oenum not one.
In a parallel fashion, we have OHG nih-ein (NEG.and-one) not even one, which gave
German nein no (cf. Meillet 1912:140). The German nicht not has the same origin as
the pronoun nichts mentioned above.
A moment ago we saw that the cooccurrence of a negator with an indefinite pronoun
may yield a possibly discontinuous negative pronoun, of which only the latter part may
survive as a negative pronoun with no morphological sign of negation. The same may
happen with negators when they are intensified. A known example is French ne...pas,
originally not a step, then simply not. The original negative particle is becoming
optional now, and we witness new reinforcements of the remaining pas Y pas du tout,
or its renovation by point. See already Meillet l.c. Further examples in Givn 1979
[L]:204. Givn (l.c. and 1973:917) also discusses an alternative source of negative
markers, namely verbs with the meaning fail, lack, refuse etc., which I will not take
up here.
21
For less known cases in Germanic languages see Krahe 1967:73.
F3. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of pronominal elements

3.2.2.4. Conclusion
In conclusion of this ch. 3.2, we may summarize the various grammaticalization channels
of pronominal elements in F3 (p. 49). What has been put in the same column is at the
same stage of grammaticalization or has the same degree of grammaticality. Here as in
all grammaticalization scales, there are functional similarities between neighbouring
positions in a row; but there are also changes which bring it about that the end of a scale
may have little in common with the beginning.
There are some open questions here. For instance, in some cases a category developed in
the course of grammaticalization is already presupposed at the beginning of the channel.
The reader may well wonder about the origin of the elements posited at the beginning of
the process. We will defer this troublesome question to ch. 7.
3.3. Nominal complexes
3.3.1. Nominal categories

Much of what would belong in this section has already been dealt with in the section on
the pronoun. Let me briefly repeat the relevant results: Definiteness and indefiniteness
affixes on nouns derive from pronouns used as determiners. These may ultimately
become mere noun markers. Greenberg (1978, 5.3) shows, for instance, that the long
vowel in which virtually all nouns in Hausa end may be explained as a former definite
article. If such determiners express gender or noun class, then these become, by the
agglutination process, categories of the noun.22 Finally, possessive affixes on nouns
originate in possessive pronouns which have undergone the agglutination process
described in ch. 3.2.1.2.
The remaining nominal categories to be treated here are number and numeral classifiers.
Case will be left for ch. 3.4.
3.3.1.1. Number
Languages without a category of nominal number are not rare. When it seems necessary
to focus on a group of individuals, many of these can use morphemes of a collective
meaning in combination with the noun. An example is Mandarin men, which originally
meant class, but is now only used as a collective or plural suffix to human nouns, as in
rnmen (man-COLL) people. Similarly, Hixkaryana has a postnominal particle komo,
which may be appended only to human nouns and other nouns culturally relevant to
humans; e.g. harye komo (sweet.potato COLL) sweet potatoes. See also Klver 1982[I],
22
As explained above, non-grammaticalizational origins of such nominal categories are conceiva-
ble.
2.1 on so-called nouns of multitude in Bengali and Heine & Reh 1984:272 on a
collective noun meaning kids in Boni. All these are enclitic or suffixed to nouns and
strictly optional; i.e. the unmarked noun may have a singular or plural meaning.
At the next stage of grammaticalization we get agglutinative number affixes, mostly
plural suffixes. The change collective > plural is illustrated with historical evidence
from Russian, Persian and Arabic in Kuryowicz 1965:52. Other examples of
agglutinative plural suffixes are Turkish -ler, Quechua -kuna and Yucatec -o'b. These
vary in degree of optionality, but none is completely obligatory. In the languages
enumerated, the plural suffix is at least absent when the noun is accompanied by a
numeral.
In ch. 3.2.1.2 we saw that verbs may acquire the category of number by the agglutination
of a personal pronoun. This is also a possible origin of nominal number. We meet here
again the two stages just described: first the pronoun accompanies the noun only when
there is some special emphasis on plurality; then it becomes affixal and increasingly
obligatory. Heine & Reh (1984:234) adduce Yoruba aw]n they, which precedes the
noun, as an example of the first stage, and Ewe w id., which is suffixed to the noun, for
the second stage. As a result of this, we often find nominal affixes formally similar to
third person verb affixes. Compare Yucatec ch'ich'-o'b bird-PL with bin-o'b go-3.PL.
Mangarayi has wu-r NONSG-DU and wu-la NONSG-PL both as number suffixes to kin
terms (other nouns take partly different suffixes) and as pronominal prefixes of third
person dual and plural, respectively, to intransitive verbs (Merlan 1982:88f, 160f).
There is yet a third source of nominal number, and this is numerals and quantifiers. (The
three sources are also in Heine & Reh 1984:273). The numerals one and two may be
combined with nouns to yield singular (or singulative) and dual, and a quantifier may
provide the plural. In Tok Pisin we get all of these possibilities and in addition a trial.
Thus:
E24. dok a dog, dogs
TOK wanpela dok one/a dog
tupela dok two dogs
tripela dok three dogs
ol dok (the) dogs (Mosel 1980:115, 60)
The claim that these elements have at least entered the course of grammaticalization may
be proved by the fact that tupela and tripela may also be suffixed to personal pronouns
to signify the respective number categories.
Irrespective of their different origins, the three types of number markers have several
grammatical properties in common. One of them is their optionality or incomplete
obligatoriness, as already mentioned. Furthermore, they are often restricted to human or
animate nouns, or these get different affixes from each other or from inanimate nouns.
Cf. Hewitt 1979:149 on the two number suffixes of Abkhaz. Finally, in this early phase
of grammaticalization the paradigm not infrequently comprises more than two numbers.
There is a dual in Mangarayi and even a trial in Tok Pisin, and there is a choice among
several nouns of multitude in Old Bengali and Hua (Haiman 1980:221f).
As grammaticalization increases, number affixes become completely obligatory and
fusional. This stage is characteristic of several ancient Indo-European languages and also
some modern ones such as German. The paradigm tends to be reduced to a binary
opposition, which is just what we observe in the development from Proto-Indo-European
to the historical languages. Number marking is generalized to all nouns in all contexts,
and any formal differences among affixes of the same subcategory either disappear or
become purely allomorphic, i.e. they lose their semantic motivation. The penultimate
stage of grammaticalization of the number distinction is represented by such alternations
as mouse vs. mice, which are more common in Classical Arabic, and by suppletive forms
such as Russian elovek vs. l'udi man, men or god vs. leta year, years. The outlet is
always that stage where the grammatical marker becomes zero. In nominal number, this
is represented by cases such as German der Wagen die Wagen the car the cars or
English the fish.
There is little historical evidence available for this course of events. For the change from
the independent to the agglutinative state of the number marker, Bengali (see Klver
1982[I]) and Chinese are relevant. The evolution from reconstructed Proto-Indo-Europe-
an to modern German may be taken to evidence the transition from the agglutinative to
the fusional and zero stage.
The various grammatical factors which make up every grammaticalization process will
be surveyed in ch. 4. One of them plays a peculiar role in the development of nominal
categories and here appears as the gradual intrusion of the grammatical morpheme into
the NP. By this the following is meant: A noun of multitude, personal pronoun or
quantifier used as a number marker occurs only once in each NP, normally at its margin.
It is a feature of the NP as a whole. With ongoing grammaticalization it may be repeated
on the head noun if this does not already carry the marker. This leads to number
agreement (and, in the case of the other nominal categories, to gender or case
agreement). In this way, number becomes a category of nominal words. A fine example
of this phase is Abkhaz; see Hewitt 1979:222f. At the end of the process, number again
disappears from non-nuclear subconstituents, ending up as a category of the noun. This
is largely true of English. For details see Lehmann 1982[U], 6.3; for the parallel
development of case marking see p. 76 below.
We will only touch upon one phenomenon which is very frequent in the development of
number marking, but whose counterparts occur throughout the grammar: the paradigm
is often simplified by generalizing one allomorph to the detriment of the others. This is
particularly common when grammaticalization is already far advanced. Thus, the plural
in -s has been generalized to practically all nouns in English and in Spanish, though at
earlier stages of the languages there had been much irregularity. However, whereas in
the above cases a reduction of the paradigm, i.e. of the semantically distinct
subcategories, was observed, here we face a reduction of allomorphy. These two
processes are to be clearly distinguished, and we shall see in ch. 4.2.2 that only one of
them is a defining characteristic of grammaticalization.
3.3.1.2. Numeral classifiers

Morphemes which express the lexical class into which a noun belongs may be combined
with any of its determiners or attributes. According to the category that they attach to, we
distinguish between article, possessive and numeral classifiers. Since very little is known
about the first two types, I will not treat them here (see Lehmann 1982[U], 6.3.3 for
some discussion). For detailed information on numeral classifiers, see Klver 1982[K]
and Serzisko 1980 and 1982.
The Indo-European languages originally had no classifiers. In modern Persian (Farsi,
Moinfar 1980), nouns may still be accompanied by a bare numeral, as in do r~n two
Iranians. The noun is always in the singular. Alternatively, however, we may bestow a
classifier on the numeral and form do nafar r~n (two person Iranian). The optionality
of the pattern points to its relatively weak grammaticality, as does the size of the para-
digm, which consists of 14 classifiers.23 All of them derive from nouns, whose lexical
meanings are still perfectly transparent, and all but two can still be used as nouns. They
remain free forms in the numerative construction, and no sandhi phenomena occur. On
the other hand, several features indicate that the classifiers are already grammaticalized
to a certain degree. First, the paradigm is tightly integrated and hierarchically organized.
There are eight forms for different classes of inanimate objects, one for bigger and
domestic animals, two for smaller animals and inanimate objects which neutralize the
first eight, two for human beings, and one universal classifier which neutralizes all the
others. Secondly, although the Grundbedeutungen of the classifiers are transparent,
some of these do not fit the classifier use. For instance, dast means hand but is used in,
e.g. yek dast leb~s (one hand clothing) one suit. The grammatical correlate of this
desemanticization is the fact that the construction is not syntactically treated as one of
nominal modification, with the classifier as the head noun. If it were, the attributor
(izafat) -e would have to be appended to the classifier (cf. ch. 3.3.3), which it never is. In
short, what we have here is a weakly grammaticalized system of numeral classification.
Contrast this with the Japanese classifier system. First of all, there are two series of
numerals, one of native Japanese origin, the other borrowed from Chinese. Some
classifiers combine with one number series, some with the other series, with no
interchange possible. Apart from those classifiers which represent objects directly
counted, such as money and time units, there are only five classifiers in general use: two
of Japanese origin for humans and non-humans, and three of Chinese origin for different
kinds of objects. Classifiers are completely obligatory; it is impossible to count objects
23
This is not a very reliable criterion, as we shall see in ch. 4.2.2. In the case of numeral
classifiers, one must be warned that the figures given in the literature on various languages are often
greatly exaggerated, because mensuratives, which designate portions of masses or form collections,
are counted as classifiers.
without an intervening classifier. None of the classifiers has an independent use or a

meaning of its own. They are suffixed to the numerals, and this is accompanied by
assimilations of great irregularity. For instance, hati eight + -hon long, cylindrical
object yields happon, whereas with -satu bound object it yields hassatu. The system
is further complicated by the fact that some numerals have allomorphs whose
distribution is determined by the following classifier, and vice versa: some classifiers
have allomorphs whose distribution is determined by the preceding numeral. This is
clearly a strongly grammaticalized classifier system.
Mandarin Chinese has long had a classifier system, which formerly had been, and in the
written style still is, fairly differentiated. The classifiers are suffixed to the numeral. In
the modern spoken language, the Mandarin dialect, the system is reduced to what had
been the most general classifier, -ge. Furthermore, the combination y-ge (one-CL) may
be reduced to ge, whereby ge assumes the meaning of unity. Its use has also been
generalized to demonstrative pronouns, and here it functions as a marker of singularity.
At this stage, it means no more than individual, unit (cf. Serzisko 1980:24f). This is the
end of the grammaticalization of a numeral classifier system.
One feature that characterizes classifier systems to a varying degree is the paradigmatic
variability of the classifier (see especially Serzisko 1982). Suppose a noun has a
constant, inherent classifier corresponding to its lexical class. Normally this may be
substituted by a more general, unmarked classifier, but this is not paradigmatic
variability. What is meant by this term in numeral classification is the discretionary
combination of a noun with a classifier neither inherent to it nor hierarchically
superordinate, by which it is, for the moment, allocated to a different class. The
following examples are from Burmese (s. Serzisko 1980:20). The noun myi river is
inherently classified by itself, yielding the repeater construction myi tc myi one river,
where the order is noun numeral classifier. However, the classifier may alternatively be
ya (CL.place), if we refer to the river as, for instance, a place for a picnic; or tan
(CL.line), meaning, for instance, a river on a map; or 'pa (CL.sacred object) in dealing
with mythological rivers. This wrong, as it were, classification of a noun is used in
various languages for jocular or derogatory effects and points to the relative freedom of
the speaker vis--vis the system. Paradigmatic variability is more likely among free
forms than among bound forms. We may therefore say that it decreases with increasing
grammaticalization.
3.3.2. Nominalization
Viewed syntactically, nominalization is the transposition of a clause into a noun; viewed
semantically, it is the transposition of a proposition into a concept. As there is a great
distance between the two poles of this transition, there are many stages in between,
which correspond to different degrees of grammaticalization of the construction. Since
I have treated nominalization more comprehensively in Lehmann 1982[N], I will here
exemplify only some of these stages in order to make the principle apparent.
In Chinese, both classical and modern Mandarin, subject and object complement clauses
may be embedded without any sign of subordination, as in E25 from Mandarin.
E25. t~ s4i -le wo4 zhn nn-shu
MAND he die-PF I very sad
I am very sad that he has died. (Bossong 1979:38)
Similar constructions are frequent in English, where we have I bet (that) he wins, with or
without the subordinator. There is no structural difference between the embedded and an
independent clause, the only hint for the embedding being the syntactic function of the
dependent clause as an NP in the superordinate clause. This is why we recognize
nominalization here.
The development of subordinators from other conjunctions will be treated on p. 58.
Apart from this, there are two main sources of subordinative conjunctions which serve
to embed clauses. The first may be exemplified by English that, German da, Welsh a,
Accadic a (< u) and Nahuatl in. Here a demonstrative is used to announce the
embedded clause. Then a mechanism sets in which prescribes that whatever is preceded
(or followed, as the case may be) by a demonstrative as a coconstituent must be a
nominal. So the embedded clause is perforce nominalized, and the demonstrative
degenerates to a mere subordinator.
The second source of subordinators are verba dicendi. Their grammaticalization to sub-
ordinators has been studied in Lord 1987. Ewe has several such verbs, one of them, b,
governing indirect speech as in E26.
E26. me-be me-w]-e.
EWE I-say I-do-it
I said (that) I did it. (Lord 1976:179)
Subsequently, this verb is used to introduce indirect speech after verbs which cannot
govern it, in a type of construction such as I argued that it is wrong. At a further stage
of grammaticalization, the indirect speech condition is dropped, and b is used to
introduce all types of object clauses, then all types of complement clauses, yielding
sentences such as E27.
E27. me-d b m-kle awua `ew.
EWE I-want SR I:SBJV-buy dress some
I want to buy some dresses. (o.c. 180)

B now has become a complementizer. In such constructions, it no longer behaves like
a verb; it takes, for instance, no verbal affixes. Lord adduces similar examples from Efik
and Yoruba.
The weak degree of grammaticality of these two types of subordinators is obvious from
several facts. They are full words, forming a constituent of their own and not particularly
attached to any specific constituent of the subordinate clause. Their etymological
meaning is perfectly transparent. In the better known cases (English, German), the
subordinator enters into a paradigm with a host of conjunctions which take the same
position but differ from it in meaning. Note the optionality of that in some contexts.
If the subordinator, instead of preceding the dependent clause, comes at its end, the con-
struction is slightly more grammaticalized. This may be observed in Japanese, as in E28.
9noA
E28. Ano hito ga hon o kai-ta koto ga yoku sirarete iru.
JAP
9GENA
NOM
that person book ACC write-PAST NR NOM well known is
That that person has written a book is well known. (Kuno 1973)
The etymological meaning of the subordinator koto thing is still recoverable. It is an
independent word and constitutes a paradigm with several other subordinators which can
appear in its position (e.g. no; cf. p. 61f below). However, the construction is slightly
more grammaticalized than the English one, as may be seen by the following criteria.
Firstly, the subordinator of complement clauses is non-omissible. Secondly, the construc-
tion may be followed by a case particle (ga in E28), indicating that syntactically it is
treated like any NP. Thirdly, the verbal paradigm of the subordinate clause is reduced,
several modal and honorific forms being excluded from it. Lastly, the subject of the
subordinate clause may not only be in the nominative, but alternatively in the genitive.
On a typological scale, this mostly occurs only if the subordinate verb itself is nominali-
zed (cf. also Bossong 1979:39), which is clearly not the case in E28. However, diachron-
ic considerations (Bossong p. 45-47) make it plausible that the genitive in subordinate
clauses such as E28 is a holdover from an earlier embedding construction where the verb
did have a nominal form.
At the next stage of grammaticalization, the subordinator becomes affixal, and the
subject of the nominalized clause regularly goes into the genitive, as in E29.
E29. Anne-n-in gel-mey-ece-i-ni syle-di.
TURK mother-your-GEN come-NEG-NR.FUT-her-ACC say-PAST
He said that your mother will not come. (Wendt 1972:187)
There is only one more nominalizer in Turkish which functions like the one in E29, and
it indicates non-future. Neither has an independent meaning. Both of them occupy the
position of the verbal tense suffix, thus reducing the tense paradigm to a binary
opposition. The subject-predicate syntagm of the nominalized clause is maximally
likened to a genitive-head noun syntagm, since not only does the subject have a genitive
suffix, but also the nominalized verb has an obligatory possessive suffix referring back
to the subject. Nevertheless, we do not yet have a deverbal derived noun here; the
formation of E29 is entirely a matter of syntax.
However, the next step in the grammaticalization scale does lead us to verbal nouns
which retain few of the properties of the full clause which we started from. English
nominalizations in -ing are an example. Here it is clear that we are dealing with the
nominalization not of a clause, but of a verb. The suffix constitutes a one-member
paradigm of nominalizers and cancels all the verbal categories of English. Still, the
verbal noun may take arguments and adjuncts almost like the finite verb of a clause. The
subject is, of course, in the genitive. In the other modifiers, there is an interesting
variation: the object may either remain in the accusative, or it may pass into the genitive,
too. In the first alternative, adverbs remain such, whereas in the second alternative they
become adjective attributes to the verbal noun. A third correlating phenomenon is the
possibility of an article in the latter, but not in the former case. Thus:
E30. a. John's constantly reading magazines
ENGL a.' John's constant reading of magazines
b. *the (constantly) reading magazines
b.' the (constant) reading of magazines
So we have two stages of our grammaticalization scale embodied in the English POSS-
ing construction. At the latter stage, the nominalized verb has assumed all the relevant
features of a noun; -ing-nominalizations are even pluralizable.
Extreme grammaticalization leads to the deletion of the grammatical formative. In
nominalization, we would be looking for conversion of verbs into nouns without an
overt derivative affix. Examples are, of course, known from English: to run the run,
to love the love, etc. However, while virtually all verbs can be nominalized by the -ing
suffix, most verbs cannot be nominalized by a zero affix. There is a restriction of
productivity here which we have so far not found to be typical of grammaticalization. I
will return in ch. 5.2 to a conception which can accommodate these heterogeneous facts,
and try here another example which apparently does not present this complicating factor.
Nominalizations similar to the ones just cited from English are common in Classical
Chinese; cf. the following example from Su Shi:
E31. a. bng b k q.
MAND soldier not can leave
Military is indispensable.
b. xi~n wng zh4i bng zh4i b k q.
former king know [ soldier GEN not can leave ]
The former kings were aware of the indispensability of the military.
(Bossong 1979:40)
There is only an indirect sign of nominality of the verb phrase b k q in E31.b, viz. the
genitive particle following its semantic subject. We must therefore assume nominaliza-
tion by a zero affix to have taken place; and this is in fact such a common process in
classical Chinese that earlier scholars (e.g. Misteli 1893) had diagnosed a random shift
of word classes or, equivalently, the total lack thereof. However, on the basis of facts
about grammaticalization that we have seen up to now, the technique exemplified by E31
fits in the scale as representing an expectable, if extreme, degree of grammaticality of
nominalization. There arises, however, the further problem that the difference of
nominalizations as exemplified by E31 and such others as exemplified above by E25,
which we have posited at opposite ends of the grammaticalization scale, appears to be
minimal. This will be dealt with in ch. 4.4.4.
The renovation of a nominalizing construction may be either complete or partial. We
may call it complete if no feature of an inherited nominalizing construction is used in the
renovation. This has happened during the change from classical to modern Japanese (see
Bossong 1979:45f). Classical Japanese had an infinite verb form which was used in
nominalizations. By phonological and morphological change, this became
indistinguishable from the finite main clause verb form, and nominalization was
renewed by means of postposed particles of nominal origin, as exemplified in E28. A
complete renovation is also the substitution of the Latin accusativus-cum-infinitivo
construction by clauses subordinated with the help of que/che in the Romance languages.
In partial renovation, only the subordinator is renewed. This process, which is very
common in Indo-European languages, was already studied by Meillet (1915f). Typically,
a subordinate clause introduced by the unmarked subordinator (English that, German
da, Romance que/che, Persian ke, Turkish -di-, etc.) is embedded as the complement
to a noun or a preposition. Then either this head coalesces with the subordinator, or the
subordinator becomes dispensable, the former head becoming the new subordinator.
Examples are Italian dal momento che since, French parce que because, puisque
since, avant que before, Turkish -di-POSS zaman/hal-de (-NR-POSS time/ state-LOC)
when/although. The former subordinator has disappeared in English before, German
bevor and fall-s (case-ADVR) if.
The making of conjunctions would easily fill a whole book. The process by which local
conjunctions become temporal ones and temporal conjunctions become causal,
conditional etc. conjunctions, is also a sort of grammaticalization (see ch. 5.1). Examples
are German da at the place where > at the time when > by the reason that, Engl.
since from the time that > from the reason that, Ital. dal momento che id., qualora
(which:hour>) if. In the end, conjunctions which mark a semantic relation of the
subordinate to the main clause are grammaticalized to mere subordinators, as when Latin
quod and quia because both fuse into Romance que/che that. The same phenomena
repeat themselves in the prepositions.
In contradistinction to this evidence of renovation of conjunctions, evidence for their
reinforcement is somewhat scant. Possibly French parce que, adduced above as an
example of renovation, is rather one of reinforcement. This depends on whether the
que-clause, at the time it was combined with par ce, was a mere complement clause (as
assumed above) or a causal clause. The parallel case of German da > zumal da > zumal
since is somewhat more convincing.
Clearer evidence comes from subordinators derived from verba dicendi (Lord 1976:183).
In Efik and Yoruba, the subordinator ke, which comes from a verb meaning say, has
been reinforced by a second subordinator ete, of the same provenience. Example:
E32. Kristian ]d]h] ete ke im] idi idik] owo...

EFIK K. say SR SR he COP man wicked
Kristian says that he was a wicked man... (after Lord l.c.)

The more recent subordinator then tends to dispense with the former one, just as in some
of the above examples of renovation. Similar observations apply to the Abkhaz particle
h) <a, which stems from a verb meaning say and develops into a general subordinator (cf.
Hewitt 1979:5-8, 28-35, 43).
A few words must be said about nominalizations in which an argument place mostly
the subject position of the infinite verb must be left open, so that it can be
semantically filled, with the help of syntactic rules, by an NP of the main clause. The
infinitives which appear in this function are very often embedded by a particle or affix
which derives from a directional adposition. Examples are English to, German zu,
Romance a, Swahili ku- (cf. Meinhof 1936) and the case suffixes, mostly the dative (s.
Szemernyi 1970:298), on Sanskrit infinitival verbal nouns. This is naturally explicable
by the final function which infinitival complements usually have at their origin.
Similarly, gerundial suffixes are often based on locative markers; cf. what was said on
p. 26 on periphrastic progressive aspects. Once a verb form is embedded with the help of
such a directional or local marker, the same process as noted above for the demonstrative
subordinators takes place: since that which is the complement to an adposition or even a
case affix must be of a nominal nature, these signs will suffice to express the
nominalization and degenerate to mere nominalizers. This is easily shown for English to
= German zu, which can even introduce infinitivals in subject function.
Certain types of nominalized clauses derive from the combination of an NP of the main
clause with an infinitival complement whose subject place the former fills. Thus, there
is unanimity among scholars that the Latin accusativus cum infinitivo originated in
sentences such as E33.
E33. Petrus videt Paulum currere.
LAT Peter:NOM.SG see:3.SG Paul:ACC.SG run:INF
Peter sees Paul run(ning)
E34. Carthaginem deleri necesse est.
LAT Carthago:ACC.SG destroy:INF.PASS necessary is
It is necessary that Carthago be destroyed.

There Paulum is the object of the main clause. Its subjecthood vis--vis the infinitive at
this initial stage is a consequence of a semantosyntactic rule of complex sentence
structure. Subsequently, its subject status becomes grammaticalized, and we also get
a.c.i. in non-object positions of the main clause, as in E34.
E34 might also be expressed in English by It is necessary for Carthago to be destroyed.
Here we have another subtype of the complement clause originating in the combination
of an NP of the main clause with an infinitival complement whose subject position it fills
(see Jespersen 1940:300-306 on details). While in American English the grammaticali-
zation of this construction is already far advanced, in French it has come up recently and
is still classified as faute in Frei 1929:94. Frei's examples are:
E35. a. m'envoyez son adresse pour moi lui crire
FREN send me his address so I may write him
b. O trouver l'argent pour lui voyager?
Where (may I) find the money for him to travel?
c. Ci-joint un timbre pour vous avoir la bont de rpondre.
Here enclosed a stamp for you to be so kind as to answer.
These examples show very clearly the conditions under which the construction
originates: The subsequent subordinate subject must be a beneficiary in the main clause,
which is adjoined with the help of the preposition for. The infinitive complement must
express the action which the beneficiary is expected to be able to accomplish with the
help of the benefaction and which, being a purpose or consequence of the main clause
action, is introduced by the final preposition to. In the course of grammaticalization,
these semantic conditions are gradually weakened or dropped, and the erstwhile
beneficiary NP of the main clause becomes the subject of the infinite clause. This may
go so far that the subordinate subject is even put into the nominative. Modern Portuguese
has reached this advanced stage of grammaticalization of the for-to complement clause,
as exemplified in E36.
E36. Ele trouxe um livro para eu ler.
PORT he brought a book for I read:INF
The construction from which E36 must have arisen, namely Ele trouxe um livro para
mim ler (mim me), is nowadays even condemned by the grammarians, though it is still
current in the colloquial language.
While infinitival complements may, thus, contribute to form a full complement clause,
the reverse process, the reduction of a clause whose argument positions are all filled to
a relational infinitival complement which has necessarily an unoccupied argument
position, has not been observed. Recall that this is certainly not what is at stake in the
grammaticalization process leading from E25 to E31.b above. It appears that the opening
of an argument position is not something which comes about by grammaticalization.
Therefore, while we often do have paraphrases among that-clauses, for-to nominaliza-
tions and -ing-nominalization, that-clauses can practically never be used as a paraphrase
of an infinitive complement. Consider the infinitive complement in sentences such as I
let him go or forced him to go. The main verb does not leave the possibility of its direct
object being different from the semantic subject of the subordinate verb. Therefore, the
subject position of the latter must remain unfilled.
3.3.3. Attribution
We will treat here two kinds of attributes, adjective attributes and possessive attributes,
traditionally called genitive attributes. Quite a few languages use an attributor, a
relational particle, in the combination of either kind of attribute with a head noun. E37
shows a genitive attributor, E38f show relators which may attribute either an NP (a) or
an adjectival (b) to the head noun.
E37. watakusi no hon
JAP I AT book my book
E38. a. wo4 de sh
MAND I AT book my book
b. yojin de hu
important AT discourse important words
E39. a. ket~b -e man
PERS book -AT I my book
b. d~l~n -e der~z
corridor -AT long long corridor
One development which can lead to such constructions is the grammaticalization of
anaphoric or substantivized attributes. When a concept (not a referent) is (pronomin-
ally or implicitly) resumed in lexical anaphora and combined with a (new) attribute in
order to identify a referent, we have an anaphoric attribute. In English, one is used as the
anaphoric head in such cases. Japanese has a polyfunctional particle no. Its former
lexical meaning was matter, fact, case (Jorden 1962:99). It functions as the grammati-
cal head noun in lexical anaphora, as in E40.
E40. a. Dare no hon desu ka? - Watakusi no desu.
JAP who AT book COP INT I AT COP
Whose book is it? - It is mine.
b. Dono hon desu ka? - Atarasii no desu.
which book COP INT new AT COP
Which book is it? - It is the new one.
No may also be a nominalizer; in this function it may be substituted for koto in E28
above. We may assume it to have taken the following development: The Grundbedeu-
tung of a construction X no is the thing characterized by X. In this construction, X
can be either a possessive or adjective attribute, as in the answers of E40, or an
embedded clause, as in the altered version of E28. The attributive function of no, as in
E37, is a secondary development. E37 represents the grammaticalization of the
appositive combination of a substantivized attribute with a lexical head; its original

meaning is my thing, the book. In this way, an older (optionally asyndetic) possessive
attribution was renewed. A parallel renovation of adjective attribution did not take place,
because adjectives are marked as attributes by their desinence -i (cf. E40b).
Similar constructions involving nouns with the meaning thing or possession are
elsewhere frequent in the expression of alienable possession. A further example is the
possessive NP in Thai (see Mallinson & Blake 1981:389). It has the form possessum
kh]] possessor. Kh]], now a preposition, comes from a noun meaning thing,
goods, possessions. Many languages, among them Bororo, Bambara and Dyula, have an
attributor of alienable possession that stems from an inalienable noun.
A similar renovation of a juxtaposed attribute by an anaphoric one may be posited for
Mandarin Chinese. Besides E38b, we have jojin hu, with the same meaning, but less
emphasis on the attribute. On the other hand, we have anaphoric or substantivized
attributes with de, as in sh yojin de is (an) important (one). An older form of de is zhi,
as exemplified in E31b above. This is known to have been a demonstrative (cf. the sh in
ch. 3.1.2 above). It is therefore safe to assume that attribution by means of de results
from an emphatic renovation of the earlier, still subsisting, juxtapositive attribution.
The history of the Persian attributor (izafat) is better known (cf. Lehmann 1984, ch. VI.3
and the literature cited there). Old Persian and Avestic had a relative pronoun hya- or
ya-, respectively, which, apart from introducing ordinary relative clauses, was also used
in the formation of nominal attributes, as in E41.
E41. a. ~a5t ya5t mrcm yim vouru-gaoyaoitm
AVEST then SR Mithra:ACC.SG.M REL:ACC.SG.M ample:pasturage:ACC.SG.M
GaB m
fr~da* azcm
created:1.SG I
when I created Mithra, the one with ample pasture lands

(Yt.10, 65)
b. tam kchrpcm frauharaiti
DET:ACC.SG.F body:ACC.SG.F eat:3.SG
yam iristahe mayehe

REL:ACC.SG.F deceased:GEN.SG.M man:GEN.SG.M
he eats the body of the dead man (Vd. 5,1)

Originally, these were nominal relative clauses, with the relative pronoun as the subject.
They forfeit this status, however, as soon as the relative pronoun, instead of being in the
nominative, agrees with the head noun in case (as does the nominal predicate), as it does
in the examples. At this stage, the relative pronoun becomes a mere attributor, though
one distinguished from those discussed so far by its agreement. This, however, is
subsequently lost, so that the attributor becomes identical to the subordinator also to be
seen in E41a. Example:
E42. ahmi ahv ya5t astvainti
AVEST DEM:LOK.SG.M life:LOK.SG.M AT bodily:LOK.SG.M
in this worldly life (V. 5,39)

This emphatic attribution gradually gains ground against the inherited juxtapositive
attribution, concomitantly with the loss of the agreement of the attribute. The inherited
construction is then almost ousted, while the attributor is further reduced phonologically
and becomes a suffix of the head noun. The emphatic force of the construction is also
lost, and the result is to be seen in E39.
The Persian case is somewhat different from the Japanese and Chinese ones, as in these
certainly no relative pronoun is involved. Their common feature is, however, that the
resulting attributor comes from a noun anaphorically related to the subsequent head noun
of the attribution and representing this vis--vis the attribute. This hypothesis provides a
natural explanation for the otherwise startling formal identity of the attributor and the
nominalizer in some of the above languages as well as several others, e.g. Lahu. It is, I
think, the only way to make sense of the phenomenon that an adjective or a possessor
noun should need a nominalizer in order to be attributable to a head noun (the
alternative, that a dependent clause should receive an attributor in order to become
nominalized, makes no sense, anyway).
An anaphoric pronoun which serves as the head of an anaphoric or substantivized
attribute may, of course, show gender or noun class agreement with its repraesentatum.
When this construction is apposed to the repraesentatum as the head noun, we have
agreement of the attributor with the head noun just as in E41. An example is Gothic
hardeis sa goda (shepherd:NOM.SG.M that.NOM.SG.M good:NOM.SG.M) as against
hairdeis gods (good:NOM.SG.M) (with weak and strong adjective declension,
respectively; see Ramat 1980:110). Both constructions mean the good shepherd; the
former is emphatic and more recent, the latter inherited and neutral. While in Gothic the
demonstrative has not become an attributor, but an article, its fate was different in the
Bantu languages (details in Lehmann 1982[U], 7.2). In Swahili we find an attributor
which agrees with the head noun in noun class. The possessive attribute construction is
[ CLx-head [ CLx-AT CLy-attribute ] ]. Examples:
E43. a. ki-su ch-a Hamisi
SWAH CL7-knife CL7-AT Hamisi
Hamisi's knife
b. ny-umba y-a m-tu yu-le
CL9-house CL9-AT CL1-man CL1-that
that person's house (Welmers 1973:275)

From the origin of the construction as posited, the attributor is a coconstituent of the at-
tribute. It becomes clitic to the attribute; and further grammaticalization, which may be
observed in the related language Tswana, leads to its prefixation, as in E44.
E44. mo-sadi w-a+mo-tomi
TSWA CL1.SG-woman CL1.SG-AT+CL1.SG-hunter
the wife of the hunter (Cole 1955:160)
Here the possessive attribute agrees with its head noun in noun class. Possessive
attributes are thus treated structurally exactly as adjective attributes, which agree with
their head noun by similar prefixes:
E45. mo-sadi ymo-ntl
TSWA CL1.SG-woman CL1.SG-beautiful
a beautiful woman (Cole 1955:140)
On the basis of the facts discussed so far, I venture the hypothesis that the agreement of
the possessive or adjective attribute with the head noun, as it is to be observed in
many languages, in particular Indo-European ones, has one principal diachronic source:
It is an advanced stage of the grammaticalization of a pronoun which formerly
represented the head noun anaphorically and served as the head for the attribute. By this
device, the attribute is substantivized, and then the syntagm is apposed to the lexical
head noun. Further grammaticalization of the whole construction turns apposition into
attribution and the agreeing attributor into an affix of the attribute.
The history of the Germanic and Romance languages teaches us that further
grammaticalization of the agreeing adjective attribute leads to the loss of its inflection
and, consequently, of the agreement. The result is an attribute juxtaposed to its head
noun without any segmental means of attribution; this is, instead, signalled by the
position of the attribute relative to the head noun. As a consequence of this, the
positional freedom of the attribute, which is notably great for the agreeing attribute, is
lost at the end of the grammaticalization channel. At this stage at the latest, renovation of
attribution sets in in the way described.
In the case of the adjective, the head directly occupies an argument position of the
attribute. Possessive attribution, on the other hand, is a special case of a dependency
relationship in which an NP B depends on A. A relator R which is to bring about such a
relation has to have a governing slot for B and may have a modifying slot for A. The
latter can be dispensed with in favor of mere apposition between A and R(B). Given that
A is a noun, this allows essentially for two syntactically distinct kinds of relators in this
construction. If R has the modifying slot, then it is a case relator, i.e. an adposition or a
case. If it lacks it, then R is a relational noun that serves as a dummy head to the
possessive attribute. In both cases, there may be a paradigm of relators that express
specific semantic relations between the dependent NP and the head noun. Consequently,
there are different channels through which the possessive attribute may evolve. The use
of relational nouns as possessive relators leads to possessive classifiers. If one such noun
grammaticalizes to a (genitive) attributor, we get the situation illustrated on p. 61 from
Japanese and Thai. We now turn to the use of case relators to make an NP an attribute to
a noun.
The genitive may be viewed as a formal case which neutralizes two opposite dynamic
relations of the dependent NP to its head: the dependent B may either be from A,
bearing an ablative kind of relation to A; or it may be destined for A, bearing a
benefactive/purposive kind of relation to it. Consequently, we find both ablative and
benefactive/purposive relators at the origin of genitive relators. The Romance attributor
de (Italian di), English of, German von etc. illustrate the first alternative. Lat. d (down)
from started out as a concrete local preposition. In the classical language, it could not be
used to mark a possessive attribute. It did, however, compete with the mere genitive in
the expression of the partitive relation, as shown in E46.a and b.
E46. a. nullum trium horum generum
LATIN none of these three species
b. nullum de tribus his generibus
id. (Cic. Rep. 3, 47)
c. ninguno de estos tres gneros
SPAN none of these three species:PL id.
From there, de generalized to a general nominal attributor, ousting and renewing the
genitive. Thus, in Spanish it is not only obligatory in E46.c, but in various kinds of
nominal attributes, including possessive ones. While de, as a preposition, is not likely to
develop into a case affix, elsewhere suffixal genitives may have evolved from
postpositions along these lines.
The grammaticalizational relationship between the benefactive/purposive and the
genitive may be illustrated from Imbabura Quechua. E47 shows a benefactive adjunct
marked by the suffix -paj, E48 shows a possessive dependent with the same suffix.
E47. wasi-ta rura-rka-ni uka churi-paj
QUE house-ACC make-PST-1.SG I son-BEN
I made a house for my son. (Cole 1982:113)

E48. Juzi-paj wasi
QUE Joseph-BEN house
Joe's house (cf. Cole 1982:115)
The same suffix is used on purposive adjuncts (o.c. p. 116f), but the dative has a
different suffix. In other languages, the formal identity of the benefactive/purposive and
the genitive crucially includes the dative. In Mangarayi (Merlan 1982:66-76; cf. TT3),
there is one benefactive/purposive/dative case which is distinct from genitive in
pronouns, but not in nouns. The possessed noun has possessive suffixes. The same
constellation exists in Hungarian and substandard German. Both the evolution of the
genitive from an ablative and from a benefactive involve a shift in the modifying slot of
the relator from an adverbal to an adnominal relation.
3.4. Clause level relations

This chapter will deal with relations between the verb and the various complements and
adjuncts. The reader will notice that, although the difference between these two types of
relations is recognized, they are not always kept apart. Similarly, the distinction between
semantic roles (or case functions) and syntactic functions, or between semantic and
syntactic relations, is sometimes knowingly obscured; and the distinction between
functional sentence perspective and syntax or, more specifically, between pragmatic
and syntactic relations, will fare no better. All of these are valid and useful distinctions.
Unfortunately, they are connected by grammaticalization scales; and differences on
grammaticalization scales are always gradual. We will take up the discussion of these
dichotomies in ch. 3.4.2.1.
3.4.1. Adverbial relations
3.4.1.1. Adverbial relators

Under the heading of adverbial relations, I will comprise such semantic relations as
typically exist between a verb and an adjunct, more typically a local adjunct. We must
complicate the issue from the start, by viewing such relations from two different angles:
from the point of view of the naked verb, and from the point of view of the naked NP.
Consider a seemingly simple case: Peter is standing on the table. There is an adverbial
relation between the verb and the NP the table. We may call it locative and be inclined
to say that on is its segmental expression. But now consider Peter is standing on top of
the table. Should we say that the same relation here holds between the verb and the NP
top of the table? This seems unsatisfactory, since on top of clearly belongs together as a
more or less fixed complex preposition. Should we then say that we again have an
adverbial relation between the verb and the NP the table, again a locative one, but this
time expressed by on top of? This might be true; but it would certainly not be the whole
truth. Further structural analysis will show that the complex preposition consists of a
simple preposition and its nominal complement, and the latter in turn governs, as a
possessive attribute formed with the help of of, that NP that we have just assumed to be
in a relation with the verb. So is this account wrong, too?
The difficulty lies, of course, in our not being clear about the nature of the relator. On in
the first example and on top of in the second are not merely segmental expressions of a
relation contracted between two other terms. Instead, the theory sketched at the end of
the preceding section (p. 64) on the nature of dependency relators applies in verbal
dependency, too. The simple or complex preposition itself contracts relations. On
the one hand, it governs its nominal complement; on the other, it modifies (together with
its complement) the verb. And if it is internally complex, then its parts may contract
similar relations among each other. Thus, instead of a single relation between a verb and
an adjunct NP, we get a chain of relations joining the two. The case with on top of is not
fundamentally different from the situation in Peter is standing on top of the leaf of the
table, where nobody would want to see a direct relation between the verb and the table.
For our purposes, we will have enough with two subrelations within an adverbial
relation: the relation between the verb and the adverbial relator, a preposition in our
example; and the relation between the adverbial relator and the NP. We will call the
former the VA and the latter the AN relation. Apart from this, there are of course, pure
verb-NP relations. We will call them VN relations and apply this term also when the
internal structure of a (possibly adverbial) relation between a verb and an NP is of no
concern.
On the one hand, VA relations are by definition not inherent in naked verbs. If they were,
there would be no adjunction, but government, and we would not need an adverbial
relator in order to mediate the relation of the verb to the NP. On the other hand, AN
relations are not inherent in naked NPs; that is, an NP does not contain an argument slot
for an adverbial relator with which it is to be combined. In both cases we need the
qualification naked, because as we shall see in this chapter, what the grammaticaliza
tion of adverbial relations is all about is precisely the combination of the relator with
either the verb or the NP; and this, of course, fundamentally changes the relational
situation.
Since VA and AN relations are dependency relations, but not inherent in verbs or NPs,
they must consequently be inherent in adverbial relators. On the one hand, these contain
an argument place for a verb which they modify; and on the other hand, they contain one
for the NP which they govern. Of these two relations, the VA relation is relatively loose,
since it corresponds roughly to the relation between a subject and a non-verbal predicate.
The AN relation is much stronger, since it is a government relation which throws the NP
into an oblique position. Now, if adverbial relators arise through grammaticalization, we
may expect the underlying lexemes to be relational in the required sense. This leaves in
principle two classes of lexemes as possible sources: transitive verbs, with slots for a
subject and oblique argument; and relational nouns, which may modify a subject as
nominal predicates (though the corresponding argument slot may be weak or absent) and
which have a second slot for an oblique argument. We shall first discuss relational
nouns, then transitive verbs. The phenomena dealt with in the following sections have
been studied on a cross-linguistic scale in Kahr 1975 and 1976 and Austerlitz 1980
(esp. p. 240).
3.4.1.2. Relational nouns

In this section we will deal with nouns designating spatial regions, such as top, side,
back etc. The fact that such designations of spatial regions often derive from
designations of parts of the body (e.g. Engl. foot, Lat. frons forehead > Span./Port.
frente front) will not concern us here. These nouns necessarily have an argument slot
for a possessor NP, designating the object with respect to which the location is made. If
a language opposes unmarked juxtaposed possessor NPs to marked genitives, the
possessors of these relational nouns will remain unmarked, as, e.g., in Sumerian or
Malak (Mallinson & Blake 1981:389). Similarly, if a language has possessive affixes,
such relational nouns will certainly admit of them.24 On the other hand, if the possessor
is not expressed, it is always understood from the context, cf. Seiler 1981, 5.2.3.1.
Thus, if I say it is in front, you will only understand me if you know what it is in front of.
Cf. also E62f below.
The incidence of such relational nouns varies a lot among different languages. For
instance, Latin has almost none, German has few basic ones (though composition yields
many more of them), English has quite a few, and Turkish and Japanese possess a rich
paradigm of relational nouns. These may behave like ordinary nouns; in Japanese, they
may even be determined by a demonstrative pronoun, as in ko-no saki (D1-AT direction.-
ahead; lit. this forward-direction) (the direction) ahead from here.
Furthermore, relational nouns, like any other nouns, admit of case affixes. In Turkish, for
instance, we have, among others, the case suffixes displayed in E49.
E49. ev-e /-de /-den
TURK house-DIR /-LOC /-ABL
to/in/from the house
The relational nouns, such as alt lower side, n front, arka back, yan side etc.,
7 ? 7 ?
enter into the following construction: they take a preposed complement in the genitive
(suffix -in), resume this by a possessive suffix (3.pers. =-i(n)), and terminate in a case
suffix. This yields the subparadigm of E50.a, exemplified in b.
E50. a. alt
TURK -e
n
ev-in -in -de
arka
-den
yan
b. evin alt2ndan from under the house

evin nnde in front of the house
evin yan2na to the side of the house (Wendt 1972:258f)
24
Mallinson & Blake 1981:50f report about nominal case suffixes in Wangkumara (Pama
Nyungan), which appear to derive from personal pronouns. If this is correct, it may be a variant of
the developments described in what follows. Relational nouns with possessive affixes develop into
adpositions with personal affixes referrring to their complement. This product may be
indistinguishable from a personal pronoun with a case affix. Such a complex may then agglutinate
to the noun that the personal element referred to.
Similar constructions are widespread in the languages of the world; they may be found
in many other Turkic, in Finno-Ugric languages such as Finnish and Hungarian, in
Basque, Japanese, Quechua etc. They provide for a rich and maximally regular paradigm
of locative expressions, almost untranslatable in languages such as Latin, and imitable in
German only with the help of clumsy circumlocutions.
The Japanese system is almost perfectly parallel to the Turkish one, except that there are
no possessive suffixes. An example will suffice here:
E51. A-no kuroi kuruma no usiro de tome-te kudasai
JAP D3-AT black car GEN back LOC stop-GER grant
Please stop in back of that black car. (Jorden 1962:97)

Japanese, however, has one peculiarity which should be mentioned here. Noun phrases
based on local relational nouns may be used to describe the location of an object, as in
E52.
E52. Ginkoo wa taisikan no mukoo /mae /yoko /temae /migi desu
JAP bank TOP embassy GEN yonder.part /front /side /this.side /right.side COP
The bank is beyond/in front of/beside/this side/to the right of the embassy.
(cf. Jorden 1962:84f)
Two things are remarkable about this construction. Firstly, the relational nouns are not
used here as adverbial relators, but as nominal predicates. This proves that the modifying
relation in which they take part can be explicated as the relation of the subject to the
nominal predicate, as was claimed above. Secondly, they do not require a locative (or
other case) suffix in this type of clause. The literal meaning of such sentences is: The
bank is the yonder part / the front etc. of the embassy. This makes sense, of course, only
if these relational nouns designate not a part of the possessor as a whole, but a region of
space identified with respect to the possessor. That is, they do not require a locative
suffix because location is one of their lexical features. We shall see below that this
feature plays a prominent role in the grammaticalization of such constructions.
The above examples mark the starting-point for the development of adpositions through
grammaticalization (cf. Mallinson & Blake 1981:446, fn. 5 for more examples).
Agglutinative (or even free) case markers, as in Turkish and Japanese, mostly attach to
an NP as a whole. Therefore, the final locational case markers in the adverbial phrases of
E50 and E51 are not coconstituents of (or appended to) the relational nouns (Nrel).
Instead, the structure must be represented as in F4.a.
F4. Structure of complex adpositional phrase

a. Initial structure [ [ NP-GEN Nrel ] -CASE ]
b. Syntactic reanalysis [ NP-GEN [ Adposition -CASE ] ]
Now, the very first thing that happens in the grammaticalization of such adverbial
phrases is the syntactic reanalysis which yields the structure in F4.b. We may
hypothesize that taking step b also means treating the governing term no longer as a
relational noun, but as a (complex) adposition. This implies, among other things, that it
can no longer be modified by attributes. This entails, in turn, that its complement may no
longer manifest in form of a possessive pronoun.
E53. a. * votre ct at your side
FREN b. ct de vous beside you
Thus, if French ct had remained a noun in E53, E53.a should be possible. However,
the correct expression is b. The same goes for German complex prepositions such as
anstatt instead, but not, e.g., for the Arabic preposition illustrated in E55.b below. As
a further consequence of the above reanalysis, the removal of the syntactic boundary
between the relational noun and the case marker clears the way for their subsequent
coalescence.
However, we must recognize that not all languages follow this idealized diachronic
development. On the one hand, not all grammaticalization processes need begin at the
start. We have already met several examples of constructions which enter grammatical-
ization channels in the middle. This is particularly common in reinforcement. We shall
see more such examples below; they do not really upset any theoretical commitments
which we have made so far. What is somewhat more disturbing, however, is that a
language may take the second step before the first one, as it were. I shall try to provide
a theoretical account of this in ch. 7.2. An example will suffice here. The relational noun
may form a constituent with the case marker without stage F4.a having ever existed,
although the adposition is clearly analyzable as a relational noun. This is so in
postpositions such as Latin caus~ (reason:ABL) because of and grati~ (favor:ABL) for
the sake of. In view of the fact that Latin does not have agglutinative case suffixes, it
could hardly be otherwise.
F4 must be understood as an abbreviation of several structural alternatives. On the one
hand, it is meant to be indifferent as to the position of the relational noun before or after
its complement and, accordingly, its development into a preposition or postposition,
respectively. I will disregard this difference except where relevant. On the other hand,
the postpositive or suffixal case marker in F4 may as well be a preposition. This allows
us to take examples such as the following into account: beside, because (of), German
mithilfe with the help (of), infolge = Russ. vsledstvie as a consequence (of), German
anstatt = instead (of) etc. These illustrate the coalescence of the primary, outer
preposition with the relational noun to a complex preposition.
3.4.1.3. From adposition to case affix

In the situation represented by F4.b, various alternative developments may set in; there
is no unitary grammaticalization channel. Let me list those developments which I will
trace in some detail:
1. Reduction of the complex adposition. The outer case marker is either dropped or
fuses with the erstwhile relational noun. The result is in either case a simple adposi
tion.
2. Deletion of the (genitive) case marker on the complement NP.
3. Affixation of the adpostion to its erstwhile complement NP.
As we will see, these three processes are hardly ordered with respect to each other. They
may occur in the sequence as enumerated, or number 2 may occur before number 1.
Number 3 may occur without number 2 having occured (although 2 may probably then
no longer occur).
Let me begin by the reduction of the complex adposition by deletion of the outer case
marker. This has occurred in most of the Turkish genuine postpositions, i.e. other than
those analyzable as regularly inflected relational nouns, which we have seen in E50.
Here I will slur over the fact that most of them govern cases other than the genitive (this
will be taken up in ch. 3.4.1.4) and exemplify from that subclass which does govern a
complement in the genitive if this is a pronoun. Thus: sen-in iin (you-GEN for) for
you, sen-in ile with you. Iin is still partly analyzable: i-i (interior-POSS.3.SG)
functions, at the same time, as a regular relational noun of the postpositional meaning
in, according to the paradigm E50. The deletion of the location case marker of the
postposition presupposes, of course, that the latter is interpreted as expressing a
locational case function of its complement NP. Recall what was said above on the
Japanese construction of E52.
The analog to the deletion of the outer case marker in the development of complex
prepositions is the deletion of the introductory simple preposition. Examples from
German include zum Trotz in spite > trotz despite, anstatt > statt instead, in Kraft >
kraft by virtue.
The reduction of the complex adposition to a simple one may also be seen in the Semitic
languages. All of the prepositions of Accadic and Classical Arabic govern the genitive,
even the unanalyzable primary ones. The reason is that all of them go back to nominal
forms in the status constructus, though this is not apparent from synchronic morphology
and often not even recoverable by etymology. Examples:
E54. a. ana bullm
ACCAD to extinguish:INF:GEN to extinguish
b. ina q~t-i-u
in hand-GEN-POSS.3 in his hand
E55. a. lil walad-i
ARAB for:DEF boy-GEN for the boy
b. la -h
for -POSS.3.SG.M for him
E55 shows that such prepositions may also take a pronominal complement in the form of
a possessive affix, just as do the relational nouns in Turkish (E50). Furthermore, the
preposition in E55.a fuses with the definite article, which points to a fairly advanced
stage of grammaticalization. Nevertheless, despite their own exiguity, they are not
affixes of the noun, and they still govern the genitive.
We now pass on to the second process, the deletion of the case marker on the
complement NP. As I said above, since inalienable possession is involved here, there
may never have been a genitive case marker on this complement even if the language
otherwise does have a marked genitive. If this is the case, the bond between the
postposition and its complement is tighter from the start, the genitive deletion phase will
be skipped, and the last phase, the agglutination of the postposition, is immediately
available. Sumerian case suffixes are said to derive from constructions of this type. For
lack of historical evidence, I will not distinguish in the following between genitive
endings that have been lost and ones that have never been there.
In Imbabura Quechua, all possessed nouns, with an exception to be discussed presently,
govern a marked genitive. Furthermore, we have case suffixes, such as those in E56.a,
and we have relational nouns combining with these and governing preposed nominal
complements, as in b.
E56. a. wasi -pi /-man /-manda /-paj
QUECH house -LOC /-DIR /-ABL /-GEN
in/to/from/of the house

b. wasi uku -pi /-man /-manda
house interior -LOC /-DIR /-ABL
within/into/from within the house (Cole 1982:119-121)

As in Turkish, Japanese etc., there are a variety of relational nouns such as ladu-
vicinity (> near), washa- back (> behind), jawa- top (> on), which can take the
place of uku- in E56.b. However, there is an essential difference between the present
construction and the Turkish and Japanese ones: Firstly, all these relational nouns
obligatorily take their local case suffixes; in this respect they are no longer completely
free. This indicates that the reanalysis of F4.b has been made; cf. Cole 1982:120.
Secondly, they do not govern the genitive of their complement; instead, this remains
unmarked for case. This evidently tightens the bond between the complex postposition
and its complement; the former is already well on its way to becoming a complex suffix
of the latter. The development of the Hungarian case suffixes, which will be discussed
below, actually sets in exactly at the point where the Quechua postpositions stop.
Postpositions to caseless NPs may also be illustrated from Turkish. In fact, the same
postpositions which govern the genitive if their complement is a pronoun, require a
nominal complement in the absolute form. Thus bu mesele iin (this affair concerning)
about this affair, bayan-lar ile (woman-PL with) with the women. An intermediate
case between these and the fully regular formations of E50 is provided by the following
examples from Kahr 1975:30: bu ocuk hakk-2n-da (this child right (n.)-POSS.3.SG-LOC)
concerning this child. This differs from the examples just given by being fully
analyzable morphologically, and from those in E50 in that the composition of the
postposition is invariable.
The present examples of postpositions governing an NP unmarked for case have been
taken from languages which do possess a case paradigm, including a genitive. However,
this construction is, of course, the only one possible in languages which have no cases.
With examples like Turk. bayan-lar ile, we are, in fact, at the same level of
grammaticalization as with English with the women or French avec les femmes. Some of
these prepositions are more grammaticalized than others. Thus, the prepositions Engl. of,
French de, German von all had a fuller ablative meaning, but are now largely devoid of
it and mostly used as attributors. The fate of Engl. to, Romance a is similar: they have
been grammaticalized from directional prepositions to case markers of the dative (see
p. 83) and, in Spanish, even the accusative. The Latin preposition per through yields
the Romanian case marker pe ACC. The Old Church Slavonic preposition na on
(superessive and super-lative) develops into a genitive and dative marker in Bulgarian
(Qvonje 1979).
The same diachronic relation between the so-called concrete and grammatical case
functions returns in the evolution of case suffixes. Cf. Turk, -e DIR > DAT, Old Persian
r~diy because of, concerning > r~ ACC, Quechua -ta and Jap. -o PERL > ACC, IE/Lat.
-m DIR > ACC. The change of an instrumental into an ergative case is common in (the
evolution of) ergative languages, e.g. in Dyirbal and Mangarayi. Cf. also ch. 3.4.2.2.
Such examples speak against a clear-cut dividing line between concrete and grammatical
cases, between semantic and syntactic functions. Recall the difficulties in setting a
boundary of directional vs. dative between examples such as I sent the book to him and
I gave the book to him. The problem of the greater or lesser grammaticality of a certain
nominal case function has its exact counterpart in the problem of determining whether a
certain NP in a clause is or is not controlled by the valency of the verb.25
Parallel to the desemanticization of the adposition, we observe its phonological erosion
and an increase in its cohesion with the governed NP, which will ultimately lead to the
adposition becoming a case affix. This is a straightforward and often observed matter in
the case of postpositions. As these occur mostly in languages where the head noun ends
the NP, there is no syntactic variation at the constituent structure boundary immediately
preceding the postposition. The sequence NP-CASE is almost indistinguishable from
the sequence NP Postp (with no case suffix intervening). Compare Jap. Tookyoo ga
(Tokyo NOM) with Tookyoo made (Tokyo TERM) as far as Tokyo, or Turk. bayan-lar-i
25
Meillet 1934:357-359 holds that the Proto-Indo-European verb had no valency (at least not for
non-subjects) and that the dependent NPs were adjuncts whose case was not governed by the verb
but chosen according to the sense. Coseriu 1979 makes a similar point about Japanese. Cf. also p.
83 below and Lehmann 1983, 4.2 on the evolution of government.
(woman-PL-ACC) with bayan-lar ile. Therefore, analogical pressure will work here to
the same effect as grammaticalization itself, assimilating the postpositions completely to
the suffixes. As an alternative to the Turkish postposition il, we have, in fact, the suffix
-le I INST , as in vapurla with/by the steamer (Wendt 1972:63). The same
grammaticalizational relationship between comitative and instrumental recurs, by the
way, in Latin: ludo cum Paulo I play with Paul, but ludo pil~ I play with a ball.
However, suffixation of postpositions is not restricted to NPs ending in the head noun.
Basque is an example of a language which has agglutinative case suffixes on NPs,
appended to whatever may end the NP: the head noun, an adjective or a determiner.
Example: gizon-a-k (man-DEF-ERG) vs. gizon andi-a-k (man big-DEF-ERG; Brettschnei-
der 1978:69).
The chance that adpositions will hit upon determiners, instead of on nouns, is much
greater for prepositions than for postpositions. Despite the general reluctance to affix
elements to varying types of subconstituents, prefixation of prepositions does occur, just
as does suffixation of postpositions to non-substantival subconstituents of NPs in Bas-
que. As is to be expected, the most desemanticized prepositions are the first to fuse with
the articles. We observe this in French forms such as du of the, au to the etc., which
have no counterpart in prepositions such as dans or avant. Similar phenomena occur in
Arabic; cf. E55.a above. In German, most of the primary prepositions may univerbate
with the articles; however, some of the univerbations are obligatory. Thus, before the
infinitive and the superlative (which, if governed by prepositions, nearly always have the
definite article), the fused forms of E57.a (all M/N) must not be represented by the
respective sequences in E57.b (Vater 1976:36).
E57. a. am beim im vom zum
GERM b. an dem bei dem in dem von dem zu dem
at the at the in the of the to the
It so happens that these are just the most grammaticalized German prepositions.
Examples of other languages in Kahr 1976:135-140.26 In none of these languages have
case prefixes on nouns been developed. We shall meet one such language below.
In German we have the combination of simple, strongly grammaticalized prepositions
with case affixes on the governed noun. I shall come back to phenomena of this type on
p. 82 and here say only a word on the temporal sequence of the last two processes
enumerated above, viz. loss of the (genitive) case affix of the governed noun and affixa-
tion of the erstwhile adposition. In the cases discussed above, postpositions have been
suffixed to caseless nouns or NPs. This is not necessarily so, as can be seen in
Greenlandic Eskimo and Basque. Greenlandic has the case paradigm shown in T1
(according to Woodbury 1977:310).
26
In French, e.g., one cannot say l'auteur ou le sige de ce processus to the originator or
undergoer of this process, instead of l'auteur ou au sige de ce processus. Cf. p. 134, E106.
T1. Greenlandic case paradigm

absolutive
ergative/genitive -p
instrumental -mik
locative -mi
ablative -mit
allative -mut
perlative -kut
Except for the perlative, all of the oblique cases are based on the genitive (of which the
ergative itself is a further development; cf. ch. 3.4.2.2); under the phonological effect of
the erstwhile postpositions, p becomes m.
Basque has a prolative suffix with the meaning for. This has either the form -entzat or
-tzat. The prolative suffix proper is only -tzat, while -en is the regular genitive suffix,
which is optional before the erstwhile prolative postposition. Combinations of other case
suffixes also occur in Basque and will be discussed in ch. 3.4.1.4.
Again, the internal reduction of the complex adposition does not necessarily precede its
affixation to the complement. Hungarian, for instance, in its preliterary period (i.e.
before 1200 AD), had postpositions constructed exactly like the Quechua ones in E56.
From the beginning of the literary tradition, these appear as nominal suffixes, but are still
readily analyzable. The following examples are from the old literary language.
E58. a. vilag-bele into the world
HUNG b. iov-ben in the good (n.)
c. hely-bell out of the place (Tauli 1966:117)
The first two examples still lack the vowel harmony to which these suffixes are subject
in modern Hungarian. The complex suffixes are based on the relational noun bl
innards and are to be analyzed as shown in T2 (cf. also Kahr 1976:118-121):
T2. Development of case suffixes in Hungarian

components Old Hung. Modern Hung.
bl + - LAT > -bele > -be/-ba ILL
bl + -n LOC > -benn > -ben/-ban INESS
bl + -Vl ABL > -bell > -bl/-bl EL
The development which these suffixes have taken in modern Hungarian has rendered
them simple and largely unanalyzable.
If grammaticalization proceeds, the case affixes will become even shorter and express
more basic functions. The Turkish case paradigm is typical for this stage: nominative ,
accusative -i, dative -e, genitive -in, locative -de and ablative -den (plus allomorphs).
Notice in particular that the suffixes of the most grammaticalized cases are the shortest,
while those of the more concrete cases are phonologically more complex. The picture is,
of course, not always that neat.
In the meantime, we should not lose sight of the constituent to which the case affix is
attached. At the stage represented by ?.a, this was an NP equipped with a case. At a more
advanced stage, roughly illustrated by E56, it is a naked NP. At the present stage, the ag-
glutinative affixes are often appended to subconstituents of NPs. Generally, the first
subconstituent to get a case affix of its own will be the head noun; but the determiner,
too, is a prime candidate. The result of this is case agreement within the NP.27 This is
absent from Turkish, but it does occur in many Australian languages, e.g. Walbiri and
Dyirbal. Examples:
E59. maliki-?l i -tji ya?l ku-nu wir?i-ki.
WALB dog-ERG ASP-OBJ.1.SG bite-PAST big-ERG
The big dog bit me. (Hale 1976:93)

E60. bayi yur?i bagul yar?agu bagan.
DYIR DET.ABS kangaroo(ABS) DET:ERG man:ERG spear
The man speared the kangaroo. (Dixon 1972:100)
Walbiri represents the incipient phase of the spreading of the case suffixes over the
subconstituents of the NP: when the NP is sequentially continuous, it receives, as a
whole, only one case suffix; if it is discontinuous, as it is in E59, each subconstituent
receives the suffix. In Dyirbal, case marking of determiners (and possessive attributes),
besides that of the noun, is obligatory. Recall that on p. 52 above we have observed a
parallel intrusion of number marking into the NP.
Further grammaticalization leads to the fusion of the case affixes with morphemes
adjacent to it. The examples given above for the univerbation of the preposition with the
determiner are at the same time examples of their fusion. Similarly, the declension of the
Dyirbal determiner is somewhat irregular and thus no longer completely agglutinative. If
the case marker is adjacent to any other inflectional categories, it will fuse with those.
Here is an example from Mangarayi (see T3 for details):
27
Kahr (1976:117) observes a correlation between the degree of grammaticality of case suffixes
and their participation in agreement in Estonian. Cf. also p. 83 below on Georgian.
E61. a?l i-na a?l a-gadugu

?
MANG F.NOM-D3 F.NOM-woman
that woman (nom.) (Merlan 1982:113)
The prefixes of the demonstratives and the nouns are not morphologically segmentable,
but they express distinctly both gender and case. Moreover, this is one example of a
language which has case prefixes on subconstituents of NPs, specifically on words,
among them nouns; thus they are genuine case prefixes, not prepositions.28 Distribution
of case marking over the subconstituents of the NP and, simultaneously, its complete
fusion with the nominal categories of gender and number is known from the ancient
Indo-European languages.29 In some of them, case inflection even affects the inner
structure of the nominal stem. In Sanskrit, several subclasses of nouns (substantives,
adjectives etc.) inflecting after the consonantal declension undergo a gradation of their
stem, with two or even three grades associated with different inflectional subcategories.
The determining factor is not the case alone, but also the number. Thus, the stem bharant
bearing has a week grade bharat-, such that we have, among others, bharant-ah in the
nom.pl.m., but bharat-ah in the acc.pl.m.
The penultimate stage of grammaticalization of case marking is reached in the inflection
of the personal pronouns of many languages. Here we often have suppletion of the type
I me, we us, German er he ihn him, du you dich you (acc.). This is
complete fusion of the case category with the (pro-)nominal stem. Further reduction of
case marking leads to its disappearance. Thus, whereas many German nouns still inflect
for case, some subclasses do not. The case marking of nouns derived in -ung, such as die
Gleichung the equation, appears exclusively on the article and other modifiers, not on
the noun itself. Sapir 1921:164f claims that the English -s genitive has been limited to
use with animates in the past and is gradually being replaced by the of genitive.
3.4.1.4. Adverbs
A verbal action may be modified by local, temporal or modal circumstances. Adverbs
contain in their meaning a circumstance of one of these types. They are therefore
constitutional modifiers; a VA relation is a head-modifier relation. It is important to keep
in mind that the relation between an adverb and its head is lexically contained in the
adverb; we say the adverb is relational (for more details about types of relations see
Lehmann 1983).
Possibly certain meanings are inherently averbial; this question may be left alone for the
moment. It is a fact that most of the adverbs in every language are synchronically derived
from nouns, verbs or adjectives. Etymology usually proves the same to be true for most
28
There is a widespread belief (e.g. Kahr 1976:135-140) that such a thing does not exist.
29
Haudry (1980) adduces empirical evidence for the two developments of case agreement and of
agglutinative to fusional case suffixes in Proto-Indo-European, and for their correlation.
of the synchronically primary adverbs. I will only say a few words here about
adverbs derived from adjectives, since these play no role in adverbial relations as
introduced in ch. 3.4.1.1. Suffice it here to mention the English adverbs in -ly and the
Romance ones in -mente. Both of these suffixes are grammaticalizations of nouns which
formerly served as the heads of the underlying adjectives: Vulgar Latin x-mente meant
in an x-sense, and Proto-Germanic x-lko meant with an x-appearance. Both of these
nouns were in the ablative. What is interesting about these evolutions for our purposes is
that the relationality which the resulting adverbs possess as adverbs is based on the
ablative of the underlying nouns.
Local adverbs, just as local adpositions, are lexically predestined to serve as modifiers of
something a verb or, more rarely, a noun, an adjective or another adverb. That means
adverbs and adpositions do not differ in their VA relation. Furthermore, both local
adverbs and adpositions signify a local aspect (a part, dimension, spatial region) of
something or with respect to something. Compare the a- with the b-sentences in E62f.30
E62. a. He is on top of the roof.
ENGL b. He is on top.
E63. a. Er ist ber dem Dach. He is above the roof.
GERM b. Er ist oben. He is above (or upstairs).
In the a-examples, the reference point of the local specification is overtly indicated, in
the form of an oblique argument of the adposition. The adverbials in the b-sentences
mean the same as the adpositions of the a-sentences. E62.b is understood to mean that he
is on top of something; and similarly, E63.b necessarily presupposes a reference point
below with respect to which he is above. The difference is that this reference point is
not expressed in the b-sentences. The difference between local adpositions and local
adverbs is that the former have a syntactic slot for an oblique complement, while the
latter do not. Their reference point must be understood from the situation; often it is the
speaker or otherwise inferable from deixis. Cf. Matthews 1981:150f.
In the present and the preceding sections, I trace the evolution of case affixes out of
either adpositions or adverbs. The treatment systematizes the facts in that it assumes that
exactly one of the alternatives is at the origin of a given case affix. However, nothing
would exclude a syntactically ambiguous item like above or on top to develop into a case
affix. As I have no relevant historical data, I will not speculate on this course of events.
I will not dwell here on the possible origins of local adverbs and mention only a few in
passing (there is rich material on adverbs in Germanic languages in Ramat 1980:173-
175). Just like adpositions, they may be based on local nouns. Cf. Engl. home = Germ.
heim, Germ. zurck (to:back) back(wards), Gothic dalapa (valley:LOC) below (adv.)
(for Hittite see below). Or they may come from adjectives specifying a semantically
30
Similar examples could be adduced from French, where words like devant, aprs, en face (de)
are used either as prepositions or as adverbs.
empty local noun, which became elliptical and finally lost. Cf. Lat. supra above, infra
below < super~/infer~ parte on the upper/lower side. Often local adverbs are
derivatively related to adpositions. Cf. German unten below (adv.) vs. unter below
(prep.) etc. Note again the case endings detectable on some of these adverbs.
Irrespective of such genetic differences, and in spite of their eventual origin in relational
local nouns, all of these adverbs have it in common that they can modify a verb without
reference to an NP complement, as exemplified in E63.b. There are languages without
either adpositions or preverbs, among them Wichita (Caddoan), Dyirbal and Mangarayi,
or only three postpositions, such as Kobon (Davies 1981:205f). Of these, Wichita does
not even have more than two cases (locative and instrumental). Such languages usually
abound in very specific adverbs, deictic particles and demonstrative pronouns which
dispense with the expression of the reference point by an NP. A typical Mangarayi
sentence with locative adjuncts is E64.a. The reference point of the adverb biwi is
perfectly clear from the context. It may optionally be added, in the dative, as in E64.b.
E64. a. Yugun -yag, aya biwi ? a-n-gu.
a-ni
MANG ahead 2.SG-go(IMP) I behind 1.SG-come-PRS-DES
Go ahead, I'll come behind. (Merlan 1982:80)

b. Biwi aga ? a-n.
a-ni
behind 2.SG.DAT 1.SG-come-PRS
I'll come behind you. (o.c. 81)
E65. Ja--yag jilbun? >wam<galama.
MANG PRS.POS.3-3.SG-go inside <N.ALL>sugarbag
It [a bee] goes inside to the sugarbag [honey]. (o.c. 82)

In E65, either the adverb or the NP adjunct is optional either can stand alone. They
specify each other, the adverb expressing more precisely the local relation, the NP
rendering the reference point explicit. E66 is another example of the same type, from
Kalkatungu, another Australian language.
E66. Juru ika-na kunti-pia uIt ika.
KALK man go-PAST house-LOC behind
The man went behind the house. (Mallinson & Blake 1981:90)
E66.' juru ika-na uIt ika kunti-pia. id.
The adverb uIt ika is a fossilized nominal form, analyzable as uIt i back + -ka LOC.
What is particularly telling in our context is the syntagmatic interchangeability of the
adverb and the NP adjunct.
If the adverb is of nominal origin, it is not rare to find both this and the juxtaposed NP
equipped with a case marker. Thus, in Maori E67.b is an alternative to a.
E67. a. ki runga i NP
MAORI to top LOC NP above NP
b. ki runga ki NP
to top to NP on top of NP (cf. Kahr 1975:27)
The juxtaposed NP may either have the unmarked locative preposition or receive the
same one as the preceding adverb.
We should pause here for a moment to pin down this syntactic structure and compare it
with the one we posited in the preceding section as the basis of adpositions which govern
the genitive (F4). The common denominator of the above constructions may be
represented as in F5.
F5. Structure of expanded adverbial phrase

([ NP-CASEi ]) ([ ADV(-CASEj) ])
The brackets indicate that the two parts of the expanded adverbial phrase do not
necessarily form a constituent. In fact, they cannot form one as long as both are
potentially independent; this is indicated by the parentheses. The case marker on the
adverb is not essential; it may be present if the adverb is of nominal origin. Casei and
casej will generally be local cases; in particular, casei is genitive. Casei and casej may
be identical, as in E67.b, E69.b and E70, or they may not, as in E67.a. In the latter case,
they must be somehow compatible; we do not expect to see, e.g., casei = ablative and
casej = allative. Often, one of them will be an unspecific locative, as in E67.a. Both the
adverb and the juxtaposed NP modify the same constituent, generally the verb of the
clause; so casei and casej are selected in accordance with this function.
The essential difference between F4 (either a or b) and F5 is this: In F4 the NP serving
as the reference point of the location has the syntactic status of a complement, governed
by the subsequent adposition. In F5 the same NP has the status of a modifier of the same
constituent of which the subsequent adposition is a modifier; the two are in apposition.
Therefore, the case of the NP in F4 is governed by the subsequent adposition and is,
consequently, the genitive, whereas the case of the NP in F5 is not governed at all, but
semantically motivated.
According to Indo-Europeanist communis opinio, structures of the general form F5 are
at the basis of the development of adpositions in the Indo-European languages. Indeed,
some of the archaic Indo-European languages, particular Vedic and Hittite, have hardly
any adpositions. Hittite (for which see Starke 1977, part II) has a number of local
adverbs of nominal origin, with still recoverable case endings. Some of them pattern in
a regular way in that they may take either directional or accusative case endings and
function, accordingly, as either a directional or a locative [sic] adverbial. From *ser
top, for instance, we get both sar~ to the top and ser on top. The locative group may
function as postpositions and take nominal complements or possessive suffixes. This is

essentially like the Turkish situation exemplified by E50 and may be illustrated by E68.
E68. a. ta-an hass-as pira-n tia-nzi
HITT CONN-it hearth-GEN front-ACC put-3.PL
And they put it in front of the hearth.

(KBo XVII 18 II 8, Starke 1977:170)
b. ERNMEna-n kwi-s anda peta-i,
troops-ACC REL-NOM.AN inside:DIR carry-3.SG
GI
DUMU..GAL-s-a peras-set zupari harz-i.
31
steward-NOM-CONN front-POSS.3.ACC torch hold-3.SG
He who brings the troops inside, the steward holds a torch before him.
(KBo XVII 1 I 32f)
If these same relational nouns are put into the directional case, they may only function as
adverbs and not take complements. These adverbs may either occur alone, as in E69a, or
they may be followed by an NP in the same case, as in b.
E69. a. testa para-a p~-nzi.
HITT then front-DIR go-3.PL
Then they go outside. (KBo XVII 18 II 5, Starke 1977:140)

b. nesta namma para-a hila pai-zi.
then again front-DIR yard:DIR go-3.SG
Then he again goes out into the yard.

(KBo XXI 90 r. 21, Starke 1977:154)
A parallel to para in E69.a may be seen in anda of E68.b. The combination of the adverb
with an NP, as in E69.b, is obviously appositive. If the NP were a complement of the
adverb, the sense would be different. The spirit of the construction may be rendered by
to the front, namely to the yard.
E70. anda-san parn-a n~wi pai-zi
HITT inside:DIR-PTL house-DIR not.yet go-3.SG
he has not yet gone into the house (KBo VI 2 IV 37', Starke 1977:152)
There are, however, collocations such as that in E70, where the construction is equally
appositive, but where the sense would be the same if the NP were a complement of the
adverb. In these, the adverb may be reinterpreted as an adposition. This process goes
hand in hand with the grammaticalization of the case endings on the NP and on the
31
The suffixal possessive pronoun agrees with its head in case. Due to phonological assimilation,
the case of the head does not appear.
adverb, which then no longer suffice to express the adverbial relation by themselves.
Correspondingly, the collocation of the adverb and the NP becomes increasingly fixed.
It is then the adverb which expresses the relation of the NP to the verb. This means that
the NP by itself no longer has an immediate relation to the verb; it needs the adverb,
which thereby becomes an adposition. This is the stage represented in most of the other
ancient Indo-European languages, for instance Latin:
E71. a. Caesar dormit sub arbore.
LATIN Caesar is sleeping below a tree.
b. Caesar se iacit sub arborem.
Caesar throws himself under a tree.
The NP arbore in E71.a is in the ablative, which comprises among its functions that of
the locative. Arborem in b is in the accusative, which still preserves some faint traces of
an older directional. Thus, the cases of the NPs are semantically appropriate to their local
functions in these sentences. However, in none of them could the preposition be lacking;
the cases by themselves do not suffice to express such local meanings.
Further grammaticalization of the adpositional phrase involves a narrowing down of the
choice of the case for the NP. Some Latin prepositions are like sub in allowing either the
ablative or the accusative; but most of them invariably require just one of these cases.
Compare E72.a and b.
E72. a. Caesar legatos ad Hannibalem misit.
LATIN Caesar sent envoys to Hannibal.
b. Caesar ad Cannas pugnam commisit.
Caesar fought a battle at Cannae.
Ad can only have a complement in the accusative. While this would be expectable on
semantic grounds in sentences such as E72.a, it would be inappropriate in b if the case of
an NP dependent on a preposition had an independent semantic function. To the extent
that the preposition determines the case of its complement, and to the extent that this
case may be without a proper semantic function, the preposition governs its complement
and the case of the latter. The consequence is that this line of development results in the
same type of construction which results from the grammaticalization of relational nouns
with a genitive complement reviewed in the preceding section; the two grammaticaliza-
tion channels converge.
In the subsequent course of events, a number of things may happen in varying order (cf.
the beginning of ch. 3.4.1.3). The case affix of the NP (or noun) will be deleted, and the
adposition will become a case affix. Proceeding in the order mentioned, we encounter
Italian examples such as E73.
E73. Cesare mise legati a Annibale. = E72a
The morphological difference between E72.a and E73, which consists in the presence vs.
absence of case endings, is matched by a syntactic difference: While the prepositional
phrase in E72.a is clearly an adjunct, in E73 it is well on its way to becoming a
complement of the verb. While ad Hannibalem in E72.a might eventually be substituted
by the mere dative Hannibali, which would represent a complement, no such choice is
available in E73, since dative complements in Italian are constructed with the very same
preposition. It is important to observe that parallel to the tightening of the AN bond, we
have a tightening of the VA bond.
The further fate of prepositions on caseless nouns has already been dealt with on p. 73
and need not be repeated here. Let us finally see what happens when (parallel to T1
above) the case affix of the noun does not get lost before the adposition becomes affixal.
The stacking of a postposition on a case suffix can be illustrated from Basque (cf.
Brettschneider 1978:69). There is an allative suffix -ra(t), as in E74.a.
E74. a. mendi-ra
BASQ mountain-ALL to the mountain
b. mendi-ra-ntz towards the mountain
c. mendi-ra-ino up to the mountain
This may be expanded either by a suffix -ntz to yield a directional, as in b, or by a suffix
-no to yield a terminative, as in c. Similar phenomena occur, according to Kahr 1976:
123f and Comrie 1981[1]:210f, in Georgian. Here it is particulary noteworthy that while
there is nominal agreement in primary cases, the secondary, complex cases are not
repeated in the agreement. Recall what was said at the end of ch. 3.4.1.3 on parallelism
in the development of agreement and of agglutinative to fusional case affixes.
A recent postposition may fall in with an old case prefix. This situation has been
analyzed by Greenberg (1980). It arose in the Ethiopic languages, which, in keeping with
their Semitic provenience, had prepositions, but later, under Cushitic influence,
developed a number of new syntactic properties, among them postpositions. E75 is an
example.
E75. bc-kctcma-w wis?t
AMH LOC-town-DEF inside in the town
Similar phenomena may be found in (non-Persian) Iranian languages. If the adposition
becomes affixal, a case circumfix is the result. Such exist in Mangarayi (see Merlan
1982:57-59). The case paradigm of the masculine noun malam man is as in T3.
T3. Mangarayi case paradigm

accusative -malam
nominative ?
na-malam
genitive/dative/purposive ?
na-malam-gu
locative ?
na-malam-gan
allative -malam-ga?l ama
ablative -malam-gana
The prefixal part codes not only case, but also gender; its form, including the zero, varies
among masculine, feminine and neuter nouns. The fusion of case and gender in the
prefixal part, together with the fact that there is no suffixal part in the (most)
grammatical cases, warrants the conclusion that the circumfixes are combinations of old
prefixes with newly suffixed postpositions. There is, in fact, a prefixless
perlative/praeterlative in neuter nouns which still is more enclitic than suffixal (o.c. 59).
The reverse situation of a more recent preposition hitting upon an old case suffix is, of
course, familiar from the western Indo-European languages. However, it is doubtful
whether circumfixes will develop here (for instance, in German), since even in those
languages where the suffixes have long been lost, the prepositions have not yet become
prefixes.
3.4.1.5. Renovations and reinforcements

In the preceding sections we have dealt with two grammaticalization channels which
lead to case-marked nouns bearing an immediate relation to a governing term, generally
a verb. The input to the channels are constructions in which the relation between a verb
and an NP is made maximally explicit, being split up into a VA and an AN relation, with
a possibly complex relator in between. There is obviously a long way from the
input to the output. As there is continuous renovation and reinforcement in this area,
most languages have not only one, but several constructions along this grammaticaliza-
tion scale. Turkish, Basque and German are typical examples. Corresponding to the
constant waves of renovation, many languages have several layers of prepositions or of
postpositions. A typical situation is the following: The most grammatical case functions,
such as the subject, direct (and possibly indirect) object and perhaps also the genitive
function, are expressed by case affixes (which may be zero). Above this, there is a layer
of primary prepositions, covering such basic adverbial functions as the purposive (final),
instrumental, benefactive, comitative, locative, allative/directional, ablative. Then
follows a layer of secondary prepositions, representing more complex adverbial relations
such as adversative, privative, terminative, sublative, superessive etc. While this set is
numerically more comprehensive than the primary one, it still is a closed set. Beyond it,
there is an open choice of free constructions involving relational nouns, combinations of
prepositions with adverbs and, as we shall see, verbs, for the expression of relations
which are seldom or never grammaticalized in languages.32
I will return in ch. 3.4.2.2 to the possibility of ordering case functions according to their
grammaticality and here draw attention only to some formal points. First, as already
indicated, the size of the paradigms tends to grow from the inward to the outward layers,
though there may be smaller subparadigms in between. Second, the intimacy of the bond
between the relator and the noun decreases from the case affixes to the secondary
adpositions and free combinations. Third, the phonological weight of the relators
increases in the same way. In particular, the primary adpositions are often all
monosyllabic, while the secondary ones may be polysyllabic (cf. also Kahr 1976:138).
Whenever a case affix (other than genitive) is combined with an adposition, adverb or
relational noun, or a preposition is combined with one of these latter devices, or any
similar combination is produced, we are presented with a more or less complex
reinforcement. Such reinforcement may take place at any of the levels of grammaticality;
no construction is so little grammaticalized that it would be exempt from reinforcement.
Thus we have seen that concrete, local cases may be reinforced by juxtaposed adverbs.
Later on in the development of the same language, the same adverbs, then prepositions,
may be used to reinforce dwindling grammatical cases, for instance the dative.
The reinforcement and renovation of prepositions may constantly be observed in the
western Indo-European languages. Contemporary German offers a rich selection. Certain
combinations of prepositions with relational nouns, such as infolge (r/ durch) and
mithilfe (Z mit), have already been mentioned. These processes are continuing. Im Zuge
(lit. in the train (of)) by, as part of (an action) is fairly recent; and at the time of this
writing, the most fashionable phrases on TV are im Gefolge (lit. in the suite) as a
consequence (of), by, evidently meant to reinforce infolge, and im Wege (lit. in the way)
by (way of), which already exhibits slight traces of grammaticalization, because if
ungrammaticalized, it would have to be auf dem Wege. Strangely enough, such elaborate
locutions are not necessarily more precise than the simple prepositions which they help
avoid.
Examples from colloquial French are listed in Frei 1929. According to him (p. 72f), de
is currently devoid of any separative meaning and must consequently be reinforced
whenever such a meaning is intended. Thus:
E76. a. la drivation des choses partir du principe
FREN the derivation of things from the principle
b. vue de l'htel depuis le lac
view of the hotel from the lake
c. divorcer d'avec sa femme
divorce from one's wife
32
This situation was sketched by J. Untermann in an unpublished UNITYP paper of 02.10.80.
On the other hand, the desemanticized prepositions de and are dropped from complex
prepositions originally formed with their help. Thus (o.c. 123):
E77. a. C'est en face [de] la Sorbonne.
FREN It is opposite the Sorbonne.
b. jusque [] maintenant
up to now
c. prs [de] la porte Maillot
near the porte Maillot
The process exemplified in E77 is parallel to the dropping of case affixes when adposi-
tions originally combined with them become more grammaticalized; cf. E56 and the
subsequent discussion.
Finally, mention should be made of the reinforcement of adverbs and prepositions by
combining them with each other. Examples may be found in the history of the Germanic
and Romance languages (cf. Kahr 1975:41). In English we have in-to, on-to, up-on,
where the first component is presumably an adverb. The Latin prepositions have been
reinforced in a similar fashion on their way into Romance:
Vulgar Latin French

ab-ante from-before > avant in front of
de-intus of-inside > dans in
de-ex of-out > ds since
At least in some of these cases, we are faced with a cumulation of prepositions, the
syntactic mechanism of which remains to be investigated.
3.4.1.6. Preverbs
This is the only occasion in this study that a grammatical class is identified with recourse
to its position relative to another one. The functions which are fulfilled by elements such
as con-, re-, dis-, etc. in Latin, are fulfilled by preverbs in a great many Indo-European
and non-Indo-European languages. Postverbs which fulfill exactly the same function
are extremely rare. One example occurs in Arosi (Capell 1971:30f). One of its
prepositions, viz. 'ini, may be suffixed to the verb, rendering this transitive with respect
to the preposition's complement. Accordingly, it is followed by the verbal object suffix.33
This is syntactically similar to the Totonac preverbs discussed below. The common
derivational verb suffixes, such as the causative, benefactive, applicative, iterative etc.,
are obviously of quite a different nature.
33
Richer paradigms of postverbs are reported from Kinyarwanda and Kwakw'ala.
In general it must be said that this field has been sorely neglected in the literature. I know
of no crosslinguistic study which surveys the different kinds of preverbs and classifies
them according to functional or structural criteria. The attempts in this direction which
are sketched below must be considered preliminary. I will start with the type of preverb
familiar from Indo-European languages and then contrast it with some other types.
Recall that in ch. 3.4.1.1, we had to split up the adverbial relation into a VA relation and
an AN relation. As the adverbial relator gradually disappears in the course of
grammaticalization, this dual relation will collapse into one direct VN relation. The
routes of grammaticalization we have examined so far have one thing in common: what
is strongly grammaticalized and finally eradicated is the AN relation. The VA relation
thereby gradually becomes a VN relation. However, it is only at later stages of the
development that this is also affected by grammaticalization, namely when a concrete
case develops into a grammatical one and the erstwhile adjunct becomes a complement
of the verb (cf. E73). It is true that this process may also go on further, leading to the
incorporation of the complement into the verb. But by this time, the AN relation has long
ceased to exist.
We must now ask whether this order of events is necessary. What happens if the VA
relation is tightened first, the AN relation being left intact? The answer is, of course, that
this leads to preverbation. Indo-European languages testify abundantly to the following
alternative: an adverb which mediates between a verb and an NP may find either its
relationship to the NP or the one to the verb tightend. In the former case, it becomes an
adposition, in the latter, a preverb. It is true that there are Indo-European languages such
as German, where the same elements may function now as adverb, now as preposition,
now as preverb; and we cannot exclude the possibility that such a situation obtained in
Proto-Indo-European as well. Nevertheless, the evidence of the earliest Indo-European
languages, Hittite und Vedic, suggests that there was a class of elements whose primary
function was that of an adverb, and which only derivatively, secondarily both in a
synchronic and, as it appears, in a diachronic sense, could function also as either adpositi
ons or preverbs. There has been some debate in the literature (mocked in Starke 1977:
127-131) on whether a category preverb must be recognized for Hittite, on the basis of
sentences such as E69.a. Hittite does, in fact, appear to represent a phase where the
adverbs are still completely ambivalent and have not yet embarked on either course. In
Vedic, they are a little further developed, since they tend to attach to the verb and only
seldom can be said to function as adpositions (see Delbrck 1888, pass.). Typical
examples are in E78f.
E78. t~' asya praj~' h? sr?sh?t ~' h?
VED DET:NOM.PL.F this:GEN.SG.M creature:NOM.PL.F create:PART.PF:NOM.PL.F
par~ babhvuh?
away RDP.PF:become:3.PL
these creatures of his perished (B 2,5,1, Delbrck 1888:45)
E79. yad ap~janti

VED REL:ACC.SG.N off:drive:3.PL
what they drive away (AB 5,28,2, Delbrck 1888:446)

They illustrate two things. First, the coalescence between preverb and verb is further ad-
vanced in subordinated clauses (E79) than in main clauses (E78). Second, while the
meaning of the combination of the verb with the preverb is commonly compositional in
a regular way, as shown in E79 (apa off + aj- drive), there are also many cases like
E78 where it becomes specialized and irregular with respect to its components. We also
see that this does not necessarily correlate with the closeness of the structural bond
between verb and preverb.
In Latin, most of these elements have ceased to function as adverbs and appear either as
preverbs or as prepositions, most commonly as both. Typical examples are in E80.
E80. a. Caesar milites castris educit.
LATIN b. Caesar milites ex castris ducit.
Caesar leads the soldiers out of the camp.
There is a slight difference in meaning between the preverbal and the prepositional
variants, as in the former the constellation expressed by the local relator is part of what
is accomplished by the verbal action, whereas in the latter it is not. This leads to a
resultative connotation in the former case. In Latin, there is a clear correlation of the
following sort: if the local relator is constructed as a preposition, the constructional
meaning is compositional, while if it is constructed as a preverb, the meaning may be
irregular to varying degrees. An extreme, but by no means isolated, case is interficere,
morphologically clearly composed of inter between and facere do, which means
kill.
The end of this line of development is reached by a certain class of preverbs in German.
The oldest layer of preverbs is constituted by such elements as be-, er-, ver-, zer- etc.
These have only very vague meanings associated with them. The clearest is zer-, which
closely corresponds to Latin dis- asunder. More vague are be- APPLICATIVE, er-
RESULTATIVE, ver- MUTATIVE & RESULTATIVE. Examples are zerreien tear asunder,
bearbeiten work on, erarbeiten work out, verarbeiten process. These elements have
no adverbial or prepositional counterparts, but are inseparably prefixed to their verbs.
The meaning alterations of the verb stem produced by them are frequently highly
irregular, as in verstehen = understand. Often they are accompanied by a valency change,
as in arbeiten vs. be-/er-/verarbeiten; however, this is not regular either.
While we might expect the semantic fusion of verb and preverb to parallel their
structural coalescence, this is by no means always so, as the Vedic examples above
should have suggested. There are, in fact, various possibilities of deviating from this
idealized development. In English, we have a type of compound verb exemplified by
leave something out, eat something up, stand up/out etc. The local relators involved here
are clearly neither prepositions nor preverbs. Structurally, they are most similar to
adverbs; but they form part of a discontinuous complex verb and may change the
meaning of the simple verb in irregular ways, just as preverbs may. The corresponding
type in German constitutes a more recent layer of preverbs. The counterparts to the
English examples are auslassen, aufessen, aufstehen, hervor- or abstehen. Here we do
have preverbs; but they are separable in certain syntactic environments, mainly in finite
main clauses, where we find lt etwas aus, it etwas auf, steht auf/hervor/ab, just as in
English. Their syntactic behavior is essentially that of adverbials.
We appear to have two parameters here, viz. the syntagmatic variability of the
combination of the verb with the preverb and the degree of fusion of their meanings,
which are partly independent of each other. Other Indo-European languages whose
preverbs would have to be allocated to various places in the two-dimensional space thus
set up include Ancient Greek and Russian. Moreover, we would have to distinguish both
between different historical stages of these languages and between different layers of
preverbs existing together at one stage. In this respect, the situation is analogous to the
one sketched on p. 84f for adpositions.
However, the picture becomes more complicated once we take a further construction into
account. In German, there are such verbs as sich gewhnen an to get accustomed to,
sich wundern ber to wonder at, halten fr regard as etc., which have counterparts in
most of the modern Indo-European languages. Here the verb is said to govern a certain
preposition. Prepositions in such a construction have certain properties in common with
preverbs. Semantically, the situation is similar to the eat up/aufessen type discussed
above, in that the adverbial relator ist not like an adverb independent of the verbal
lexeme, but in some way forms part of it. Some of these verb + preposition syntagms
can alternatively be rendered by a preverb-verb syntagm; thus we have warten auf wait
for = erwarten, hoffen auf hope for = erhoffen, zweifeln an doubt = bezweifeln, etc.
However, the verb + preposition complex differs from the constructions reviewed so
far in that the adverbial relator governs an NP which constitutes one of the actants of the
verb. So adpositions, too, can experience the fate that we have just found to apply to
adverbs, namely they lose their independence from the verb and are somehow subsumed
under its meaning.
The discussion of the grammaticalization of adpositions in the preceding sections
showed us that this commonly proceeds to completion without the intervention of any
such factor as semantic irregularity. The development exemplified in the preceding
paragraph would seem to be a deviation from the course of grammaticalization,
something which may or may not happen, but which clearly is not constitutive of
grammaticalization. Looking back at our Indo-European preverbs, we must recognize
that semantic irregularity varying from slight modifications of regular compositiona-
lity to complete unpredictability is characteristic of and essential for them. What is
more, preverbation as exemplified so far has all the properties of a process of
word-formation. It does not apply to all verbs (or to all members of a grammatically
defined subclass), but exhibits varying degrees of productivity; and it applies to different
verbs with different results. Nothing of the sort has been found in the grammaticalization
channels discussed so far. This should warn us against including preverbation, at least of
the above type, as one domain of grammaticalization.
It is now legitimate to ask whether semantic irregularity is really a necessary ingredient
of preverbation. We are looking for a preverb which does not contribute to the verbal
lexeme but which, just like an inflectional affix, alters the grammatical behavior of the
verb. In short, we are looking for an adposition which is prefixed to a verb without
losing the syntactic properties of an adposition. An example of this has already been
presented in E80 above; but as was stated there, this is not a regular grammatical strategy
in Latin.
Two types of verbal prefixes come to mind which fulfill the above requirement. The first
is maximally similar to the Latin example just mentioned and occurs in Totonac (Penu-
tian, Mexico; see Reid et al. 1968:24-30). Totonac has SVO as the normal order of the
main constituents, no cases and some basic prepositions such as na(c) LOC, partly
borrowed from Spanish. It has personal prefixes on verbs and relational nouns. The
verbal agreement prefixes may cross-reference up to two participants. Nearer to the root,
there is a series of slots for preverbs of the kind relevant here. (A bene-/malefactive
suffix which figures in Reid et al.'s account will be omitted here.) The use of the pre-
verbs is illustrated by E81.
E81. a. T-tlahua-lh huanm~ c~'-lacchicni'.
TOTON PRAET-do-PAST that place.of-town
He did it passing by that town. (o.c. 25f)

b. L-tucsa qui'hui'.
INST-hit stick
He hits him with a stick. (p. 26)
It may be seen that the function of these preverbs is strictly comparable to that of adposi-
tions. The Totonac preverbs govern complements, though these may be reduced to verbal
agreement prefixes, which in turn are zero for the third person. But if there is a
complement NP, there is no additional preposition. For the specific adverbial functions
involved others are COMITATIVE, INESSIVE, and SEPARATIVE , there is no
alternative to this construction; i.e. there is no way of omitting the prefixes.
A further essential difference from the Latin preverbs consists in the fact that the Toto-
nac preverbs may be combined by rules governing their possible cooccurrence and se-
quencing. E82 is an example with three preverbs.
E82. l-t-mak-tam~hua tumn
TOTON INST-PRAET-SEP-buy money
As he passes by it, he buys it from him with money. (p. 27)

It is evident that this is a means of augmenting the valence of a verb. Now this is
something which elsewhere is done by derivation, not by inflection. Although the
Totonac preverbs are completely regular and insofar inflectional, it is interesting to note
that they occupy affix positions relatively close to the verbal root. The sequence of
verbal prefixes is: Tense & Person - Aspect - Preverbs - Transitivity-changing Derivation
- Root. With this in view, the grammatical status of the preverbs appears to represent an
exceptional, type-constitutive feature of Totonac. It is all the more remarkable as there
are no adpositions corresponding to the preverbs.34
The second type of grammatical preverb presented here does have adpositions from
which it appears to be derived. In Abkhaz,35 many of the local relators can be shown to
derive from relational nouns. Some of them occur only as postpositions, others only as
preverbs, and others alternatively as both. It is with the latter subclass that we are
concerned here. Furthermore, Abkhaz has a personal prefix slot on relational nouns and
postpositions and up to three such slots on verbs. These are agreement prefixes, i.e. they
occur independently of whether a complement NP is additionally present or not. The
instrumental postposition is -la, as in E83.
E83. a-a/ -la sc-yc! -sc-yt'.
ABKH ART-Hammer OBL.3.SG.NHUM-with ABS.1.SG-IO.3.SG.M-hit-INDEP
I hit him with the/a hammer. (Hewitt 1979:114)

E83.' a-a/ s-a+la-yc
! -sc-yt'.
ART-hammer ABS.1.SG-OBL.3.SG.NHUM+with-IO.3.SG.M-hit-INDEP
In an alternative, and often preferred, construction, the postposition, together with its
personal prefix, is inserted in the series of verbal prefixes, namely between the absoluti-
ve and the indirect (or oblique) object slot. The NP complement of the postposition
remains in its place. This is exemplified in E83'. It is a grammatically regular
construction for quite a number of local and other relators.
If the Abkhaz preverb did not have its personal prefix, it would be more similar to the
Totonac one. Being as it is, the combination of preverb with agreement affix is
assimilated to a personal agreement prefix. In this respect, it is similar to preverbation in
Sumerian (see Falkenstein 1959:46- 49, 59f) and to one agreement prefix class of
Swahili (cf. Kahr 1975:48). There are no preverbs in this language, but instead a number
of verbal prefix slots, among them one for the subject and one for the direct object. The
subject agreement prefix may also refer to a local adjunct if this is topicalized, as in E84.
E84. ku-le m-ji-ni ku-me-ugua wa-tu wengi
36
SWAH CL17-D3 CL3-village-LOC CL17-PF-fall.ill CL2-man CL2:many
In that town many people are ill. (Polom 1967:160)
34
Recall, in contrast, the otherwise similar Arosi case mentioned on p. 86.
35
See Hewitt 1979:113-149. The facts of closely related Cherkes are similar.
36
M-ji-ni, being a locative expression, triggers class 17, i.e. locative, agreement.
The agreement prefix ku- on the verb represents the amalgamation of a pronominal
element with a locative semantic component, and it refers to an adjunct NP elsewhere in
the clause. So far the construction is similar to the Abkhaz one of E83'. On the other
hand, the differences are not to be minimized. For one thing, there is strictly speaking, no
local relator in ku-, as there is an adverbial relator in the Abkhaz a+la. Instead, the
locative element constitutes a noun class, whereas in Abkhaz noun classes are
represented by the personal prefix, not by the preverb itself. Finally, the reference to
local adjuncts by verb prefixes is a narrowly restricted phenomenon in Swahili, whereas
it is common in Abkhaz. Nevertheless, the example shows how grammatical
preverbation may gradually pass over into verbal agreement.
No grammaticalization channel for preverbation will be set up here. On the one hand,
preverbation of the Indo-European type does not appear to be a product of grammatica-
lization. On the other hand, the evidence for grammatical preverbation is as yet too scant
for us to conceive of its evolution; more languages of the Totonac type have to be found.
However, what has been seen suffices for us to assert that an adverbial relator, which
mediates between a verb and an NP, may take two alternative courses of grammati-
calization, according to whether it becomes more noun-bound or more verb-bound. In
the former case, it will end up as a case affix, in the latter as a preverb. In this way we
might hope to formulate the diachronic basis of the functional equivalence of case
affixes and preverbs, as far as it holds.
3.4.1.7. Coverbs
Up to now we have concentrated on adverbial relators derived from relational nouns.
However, the only formal condition for something to be able to provide an adverbial
relation to an NP is that it contain an oblique argument slot. This condition is fulfilled,
among the lexemes, not only by relational nouns but also by transitive verbs.
Accordingly, we find adpositions derived from transitive verbs. Sometimes these are
finite, as in Italian un anno fa (Lit.: a year it makes) a year ago. But more often they are
participial, as in Italian nonostante = notwithstanding, German whrend = during, Engl.
concerning etc. It seems plausible that both relational nouns and transitive verbs are
available for languages of any type for the formation of adpositions. While this appears
to be true in principle, languages of different types have strong one-sided preferences.
Thus Japanese, Turkish, Quechua, Hungarian and typologically similar languages seem
to strongly favor relational nouns as the source of their adpositions. When we look for a
language which favors transitive verbs, we come across a phenomenon somewhat
different from the examples just adduced, namely coverbs. I will assume a coverb to be
a serial verb which assumes the function of an adposition (cf. p. 30), thus restricting
somewhat the possible meaning of this term. The development of serial verbs to adposi-
tions has been treated repeatedly in recent times; see, for example, Li & Thompson 1973,
1974, Hagge 1975, Givn 1975, esp. 93ff, Hyman 1975, Kahr 1975:33-40, Sasse
1977[G]:113-117, Huang 1978, Clark 1979 and Lightfoot 1979:213-228. Here are some
examples:
E85. a. Kuv txiv tsis nyob hauv tsev

HMONG I male not be.in inside house
My father is not at home. (Clark 1979:7)

b. Maivmim npaj ib roog qav nyob hauv tsev.
Maimee prepare one table food in inside house
Maimee is preparing a meal in the house. (o.c. 6)
E86. D kw Xm sb nm!
EFIK take knife this cut meat
Cut the meat with this knife! (Welmers 1973:369)

E87. Nm tm Xm n]! m!
EFIK do work this give me
Do this work for me! (ibid.)
E88. Wo4 yng jia4 ndao jia4 n zhi4.
MAND I use scissors cut paper
I cut paper with the scissors.

E89. Ni4 ji ge4 i t~ s~n.
MAND you lend give he umbrella
You lend him an umbrella.
The examples in E85 show the same element used once as a full verb, then as a serial
verb with the force of a preposition. The other examples show verbs only in the latter
function. The contrast between the interlinear transmorphemization and the idiomatic
translation is meant to suggest that these can still be used, with varying degrees of
freedom, as full verbs, but here function like prepositions. The development of coverbs
commonly to be observed has been sketched in Clark 1979:3; her table is reproduced
here, with some adaptations, as F6. While 1, 2 and 3 are subsequent substages of stage
II, a and b are alternative realizations of the final stage.
Despite the wealth of recent literature which is more typologically than descriptively
oriented , the details of this development are not yet sufficiently clear. The nature of
verb serialization has to be left in the dark here, just as it had to be above on p. 30.
However, it seems safe to assume that the juxtapositional serial construction with which
we enter stage II is reanalyzed, during this stage, as a dependency construction in which
the subsequent adposition is dependent on its erstwhile fellow verb. Simultaneously, the
coverb loses any inflectional characteristics it may have had; i.e., it loses the properties
of a verb. As has been stressed by Givn (1975:82-86), the semantic depletion, the
morphological reduction and the loss of syntagmatic variability are all ingredients of the
grammaticalization of a verb to an adposition; but they do not need to occur exactly
simultaneously. Therefore, there is no sharp boundary between (co-)verb and adposition.
Again, since these processes may affect different verbs at different times, not all the
serial verbs of a language are necessarily at one and the same stage of F6. All of this is
exactly parallel to the picture drawn above on p. 84f for adpositions of nominal origin.
F6. Grammaticalization of coverbs
stage category
I. V - The word occurs only as a verb.
II. 1.
9
V
` (P) The word occurs both as a verb and as an adposition:
the coverb stage.
9 9
2. V P
9 9
3. (V) P
9 9
III. a. - P The word occurs only as an adposition.
b. V P Underlying verb and adposition become homophones.
A coverb may be regarded as an adverbial relator providing a relation between a main

verb and an NP. In the preceding section we saw that such an adverbial relator may
either become noun-bound or verb-bound. The development of serial verbs into adposi-
tions is clearly a case of tightening the bond between the relator and the NP. We may ask
whether the alternative, the coalescence of the coverb with the main verb parallel to
the evolution of preverbs , also occurs. There is, in fact, abundant evidence that it
does. E90 and E91 are examples.
E90. d kw d!
EFIK take knife come Bring a knife! (Welmers 1973:369)
E91. n ts k.
EWE he drink water die He drowned. (W. Kuhn p.c.)
We observe two things here. First, the serial and the main verb form a complex lexical
item. Second, this may be discontinous, as in E90. These facts are exactly parallel to
those about preverbation of the Indo-European type as discussed in ch. 3.4.1.6. That is,
the composition of two verbs would not be regarded as a case of grammaticalization. I do
not want to imply, however, that the grammaticalization and the lexicalization of a serial
verb construction are always neatly distinct. In order to dispell this hope, it suffices to
compare E90 with E86. The difficulty of keeping verbal compounds and grammaticaliz-
ed constructions of full (infinite) verb + auxiliary distinct in Dravidian languages may be

seen in Bloch 1954:90-96, 109-112 and Kachru 1980.
The various evolutions of adverbial relators may then be summarized as follows. The
lexical source of an adverbial relator is basically either a relational noun or a transitive
verb. No matter which source it is, the relator may either become more noun-bound and
develop into an adposition, or it may become more verb-bound and form a compound
verb. That is, the paths starting from the two distinct sources first branch off and then
converge cross-wise, as in F7.
F7. Evolution of adverbial relators

source relational noun transitive verb
direction noun-bound verb-bound
product adposition part of verb
While the path leading to an adposition is a grammaticalization channel, the one leading
to verbal composition is not. Only in some cases of preverbation which one would not
call verbal composition (e.g. Totonac and Abkhaz) can we speak of grammaticalization.
Once the paths have merged, the genetic differences become irrelevant. In particular, an
adposition stemming from a coverb may develop into a case affix just as one stemming
from a relational noun. Gilyak, e.g., has a couple of cases of this origin, among them the
instrumental. This need not be pursued further here. We should, however, look back at
the difference in the sources and ask whether it is typologically relevant (for some hints,
see Hagge 1975:257-260). Obviously, the languages which favor relational nouns as the
source of their adverbial relators are not the same as those which favor coverbs. We do
not know which typological differences are at the basis of these alternative choices, but
we may suspect that they have to do with the ways in which the speakers prefer to raise
sentential complexity, namely by putting in either more nouns or more verbs.
3.4.2. Main actant relations
3.4.2.1. Terminology
The following distinctions will be made in this section (cf. Hagge 1978:34ff):
1) At the level of communicative sentence perspective, we have, on the one hand, the
polar opposites of theme and rheme (that about which something is said, and what
is said about it), and on the other hand the two isolated notions of topic (the
exposition or reference-frame of a sentence, usually marked by left-dislocation)
and of focus (an element emphasized by contrastive stress or even by a

cleft-construction).
2) At the level of sentence semantics, we have semantic (or case) roles, such as the
agent, the patient, the experiencer etc.
3) At the level of syntax, we have syntactic functions such as the subject and direct
object, or the absolutive and the ergative functions, the indirect object and perhaps
some more.
4) At the level of morphology, we have cases such as the nominative and accusative,
or the absolutive and ergative, the dative, locative etc.
Distinctions such as these must be made, but it is not always clear how they are to be
made. Complications arise at least from the following interrelations: The matching of a
content with an expression, applied to the field of grammar, produces an association of
semantic roles with morphological cases. This is generally rather indirect and
complicated in the strongly grammaticalized cases; not every agent is in the nominative,
nor does every nominative represent an agent, and so on. It becomes increasingly direct
and biunique in the more concrete cases; consider, for instance, the association of an
instrumental role with an instrumental case, or of a goal with an allative case. Wherever
a semantic role is not inherent in the lexical meaning of a verb, but has a separate
representation, it becomes less necessary to keep semantic role and morphological case
apart; they may be treated as content and expression of a sign.
Furthermore, the concept of syntactic function becomes obscure when we ask for (adver-
bal) syntactic functions beyond that of the indirect object, i.e. beyond those which have
been dubbed term functions in relational grammar and which we may call pure
syntactic functions. Is there a syntactic function of a locative, or instrumental,
complement, or even adjunct? It appears that syntactic functions gradually turn into
semantic functions. I have just said that case roles and morphological cases may be
treated as paired at this level. Would it make sense to double these case signs, which
really express different sorts of grammatical functions, by a distinct concept of syntactic
function? Could all the numerous functions which figure here really be kept distinct on
purely syntactic grounds? I will assume (with Matthews 1981:17-21) that they cannot,
and will therefore collapse them into the two groups of complements and adjuncts, which
are syntactically distinct. The pure syntactic functions are all functions of complements.
Those more semantic functions establish the various kinds of adjuncts, but at least some
of them (e.g. the locative) may also figure among the complements.
The two kinds of interrelationships discussed in the foregoing two paragraphs obviously
depend on each other. It appears that the concept of distinct syntactic functions is useful
exactly in that domain where there is no biunique mapping of semantic roles onto mor-
phological cases. The syntactic functions mediate, as it were, between the two.
Furthermore, the measure of arbitrariness in the association of semantic roles with mor-
phological cases which is represented in the pure syntactic functions must somehow be
connected with the fact that all of them are functions of complements, that is, of terms
governed by the verb.
A further problem which has provided the issue for the recent debate on ergativity is
hidden by the polysemous use of the terms absolutive and ergative above. While it is
clear that these terms are correctly used at the morphological level, it is controversial
whether syntactic functions different from those of the subject and the direct object must
be assumed for ergative systems; maybe the syntactic functions absolutive and ergati-
ve result only from an illegitimate transposition of morphological concepts into syntax.
To the extent that I will not resolve this dilemma here, the few remarks below which
touch on it will remain obscure. On the basis of the criterion of verbal agreement,
however, I will favor the view that the fundamental syntactic functions in ergative
systems differ from those in accusative systems.
Ch. 3.4.2 concentrates on the marking of main actant relations by cases. Their marking
by personal agreement affixes has been treated in ch. 3.2.1.2. Independently of such
morphological marking, the question, of course, arises whether the syntactic functions
themselves can originate by grammaticalization of case roles. This question will be
touched upon at the end of ch. 3.4.2.3, but will not be resolved here.
3.4.2.2. Grammatical cases

We have seen in ch. 3.4.1 that adpositions may develop into case markers. However, we
averted our attention from this development as soon as the stage of case marking was
reached; i.e. we have not pursued any further developments within the case marking
system. The consequence of this is that we have seen how concrete cases may emerge by
grammaticalization; but we have seen little about grammatical cases. Apart from some
remarks on p. 73, the essential exception to this is the genitive, which had to be treated
in ch. 3.3.3, since here we are talking about main actant relations. On the following, cf.
Givn 1979[L]:218.
We will start here with the dative. There are basically two sources for it, the directional
and the benefactive. The first one is best known from English to, formerly only a
directional preposition. The same development led from Latin ad to to Romance a,
which functions, among other things, as a dative marker (cf. E73). It also befell Quechua
-man,37 Turkish -e, Burmese -kou and Japanese -ni. The development of the benefactive
into the dative may be exemplified from Brazilian Portuguese, where the preposition
para for is increasingly used instead of a in the dative function, e.g. in dar para give
to, perguntar para ask (someone).
A dative marker may further develop into an accusative marker. In keeping with its
origin, this will first be used to mark direct objects with a relative independence, mainly
human and/or definite/specific objects. Examples are Spanish a and Burmese -kou.38
Another case in point is Engl. him, which originally was a dative, but replaced the OE
37
It is only allative in Ancash, but allative/dative in Imbabura; see Cole 1982:104.
38
See Klver 1985 for Burmese; furthermore, Dixon 1979:99 for Ngarluma and, more in general,
Mallinson & Blake 1981:48f, 166.
accusative hine. A related origin is the range or referential case meaning with respect
to, as in the case of Persian -r~ and Bororo -ji.
The accusative, in its turn, is the case of the actant most intimately connected with the
meaning of a transitive verb and most directly governed through its rection. It could only
be generalized to all immediate actants, thus becoming an absolutive. However, such a
development is not attested (cf. Dixon 1979:101, fn. 49), mainly because most absolutive
cases in the world are morphologically unmarked.
The ergative is the case of the agent of a transitive verb. Its diachronic formation may be
part of the genesis of an ergative system in a language, but it may also be a renovation
within an already existing ergative system. Anyway, the following developments seem
to occur (cf. Anderson 1977 and Givn 1980): In a passive construction, the agent may
be adjoined in the instrumental case. When this construction becomes more current and
the agent becomes increasingly obligatory, it is reinterpreted as a transitive ergative
construction, the instrumental serving also as the case of the transitive subject.
Accordingly, instrumental and ergative are expressed alike in many ergative languages,
among them Classical Tibetan, Dyirbal and Avar. If the original passive construction is
in the perfect or some resultative aspect, the achievement denoted by it may be concei-
ved of as a possession of the agent, and this may accordingly be expressed in the dative
or locative (see Seiler 1973). With the frequent rise of ergativity in perfect clauses, we
also get ergative cases which are morphologically identical to the dative, as in several
Indo-Iranian languages, or to the locative, as in Chukchi and some Caucasian languages.
Whenever a (passive) predicate is nominalized this may occur not only in subordinate,
but also in main clauses, namely whenever there is an (analytic) nominal verb form ,
its agent may be in the genitive. When such a construction is reinterpreted as transitive,
the genitive develops into an ergative. Again, genitive/ergative polysemy is a frequent
phenomenon in ergative languages, e.g. in Lak (Caucasian), Eskimo and Sherpa
(Tibeto-Burmese).
When the case of the transitive subject is generalized to any subject, the ergative
develops into a nominative. In Sherpa, for instance, this takes place via the intrusion of
the ergative into clauses with an incorporated object, which are less typically transitive.
On similar developments in Georgian and Mingrelian, cf. Anderson 1977. In this
manner, marked nominatives may arise; and where they occur, they may be taken as a
hint to an earlier ergative system. Accordingly, the Indo-European nominative in -s has
been interpreted as a relic of an ergative system to be reconstructed for some
Pre-Proto-Indo-European. This hypothesis would, at the same time, account for the
formal similarity between the nominative and the genitive, at least in some declension
classes; cf. Latin turris tower, nominative or genitive singular.
The stringency of this reconstruction remains to be examined. There are at least two
languages with marked nominatives which do not invite the reconstruction of an earlier
ergative system. In Burmese, the nominative (both in transitive and in intransitive
clauses) is optionally marked by -ka, the ablative suffix. And in Japanese, one way of
marking the nominative is by appending ga, which goes back to a genitive morpheme. In
both of these cases, contrastive emphasis is involved.
The grammaticalization phenomena sketched so far may be summarized in F8. This scale
incorporates some ordering which has not been demonstrated empirically, but which I
assume may be demonstrated to be very much the way indicated. It has various
interpretations, the grammaticalizational one being the interpretation most relevant here.
Alternatively, it shows possible polysemies of case affixes:39 two functions connected by
grammaticalization may be represented by a polysemous case affix. Cf. ch. 4.2.1 on how
grammaticalization connects the Grundbedeutung with the Gesamtbedeutung of an item.
F8. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of cases
More generally, F8 may be interpreted as a universal hierarchical layering to be found
presumably with modifications in the case system of any individual language.40 The
rightmost column constitutes the top of the hierarchy. Moving towards the left and thus
descending the hierarchy, we do not arrive at any bottom. The adverbial relations
discussed in ch. 3.4.1 may be arranged in similar rows and columns as above and may
39
NB: Such polysemies must be kept distinct from case syncretisms, which affect cases of equal
grammaticality (arranged in columns in F8), e.g. the instrumental and the ablative.
40
In the last two columns, the two rows represent, of course, alternative possibilities of systematic
cooccurrence; we either have accusative and nominative, or ergative and absolutive.
continue the scale to the left until grammar ceases and the lexicon begins.41 This
layering, introduced already on p. 84, may be captured by a number of specific
hypotheses which use the criteria generally differentiating among degrees of
grammaticality (see ch. 4) and which together may be regarded as rendering the
traditional notion of concrete vs. grammatical case more precise. One of these
hypotheses, which takes up the considerations of p. 84, will be formulated here (see
Lehmann 1983, 4): There is a scale of structural means for the expression of case
functions which starts with relational nouns and coverbs and passes through adverbs,
adpositions and case markers to morphological zero expression. In every language, this
scale is coupled with scale F8, such that the least grammaticalized case functions are
expressed by relational nouns or coverbs and the more grammaticalized ones
successively by the other means. Both case functions and means may be skipped, but the
order must be observed. Thus, the hypothesis means that each kind of structural means
must be employed for a continuous segment of F8. One more specific hypothesis entailed
by this general one is: if a language has no segmental expression for some of the case
functions, these form a continuous segment of F8, starting from the right (top). With
some minor exceptions, this is empirically true in an overwhelming number of
languages.
3.4.2.3. From functional sentence perspective to syntax

The title of this section is reminiscent of Givn's From discourse to syntax (1979). In
it, I shall report on the arguments presented in the literature (Li & Thompson 1976,
Sankoff 1977, Hagge 1978, Givn 1979[d], Vincent 1980[i]) for the grammaticalization
of communicative functions to syntactic functions.
The most common way to express a topic is by left-dislocating an NP and adjoining it as
a coconstituent to a clause in which it is anaphorically resumed. This construction is
becoming increasingly frequent in substandard French; see Ashby 1981. An example is
E92.
E92. Jean, je l'ai vu hier.
FREN John, I saw him yesterday.
There is no syntactic relation between the left-dislocated NP and the following clause or
anything in it. One may therefore say that we are here at a level where syntax does not
yet govern, where the discourse is structured only by the rules of functional sentence
perspective.
Some languages have more or less circumlocutory means for marking the topic by more
than mere sequential ordering. In German, we say was NP betrifft/angeht as regards
NP, and in Portuguese and French, somewhat less clumsily, quanto a = quant as for.
41
This fact constitutes another principal challenge to the theory of case grammar; cf. Dillon
1977:76f.
The first step in the grammaticalization of such a construction is realized in Japanese.

There is a postnominal particle wa, which indicates that the preceding NP is the topic or
the theme of the sentence. It may follow a bare NP, as in E93a, or one equipped with a
case marker, as in b.
E93. a. Matti wa arimasen
JAP match TOP EXIST:POL:NEG
As for matches, there aren't any. (topic), or:

There ren't any matches. (theme) (Jorden 1962:43)
b. Kyooto e wa ikimasen desita.
Kyoto DIR TOP go:POL:NEG AUX:PAST
To Kyoto, I did not go. (Jorden 1962:101)

The theme is communicatively less salient than the topic; it is not set off by stress or a
following pause, and syntactically, it is a constituent of its clause. Correspondingly, wa
is more grammatical than the topic locutions mentioned above. It is, in fact, in one
distribution class, and thus mutually exclusive, with the subject marker ga and the object
marker o (on which see below). Thus, while other NPs may keep their case markers,
subject and object are neutralized before wa.
Suppose now the following two things happen: First, for every verb, one of its
semantically defined actants is destined to be the theme of a grammatically unmarked
sentence. This would naturally not be done with arbitrary variation from verb to verb, but
with a certain degree of semantic consistence. In particular, the agent will be a preferred
theme. Second, the theme is generalized so that every sentence has one. How exactly
these two steps are accomplished is largely a mystery; the empirical, in particular histo-
rical evidence for them is just not overwhelming. Anyway, both of them imply that the
theme is deprived of its communicative function, because it can no longer vary
independently of the syntax. It has been syntacticized, i.e. become a syntactic function.
Every clause is conceived of as containing a predication about an NP which has this
function, namely that of the subject. We thus get a grammaticalization channel topic >
theme > subject (cf. Li & Thompson 1976:484, Givn 1979[d]:83-85, Comrie
1981[L]:114 and Mallinson & Blake 1981:99-101).
A by-product of this development is the subject-verb agreement (cf. p. 36f). As the
left-dislocated NP is gradually integrated into the clause, the anaphoric pronoun referring
to it is ousted from the subject position and becomes clitic to the verb. Since its referent
is ultimately in the same clause, its function ceases to be anaphora and becomes
agreement. Another form of the same development leads to the formation of a copula out
of an anaphoric demonstrative, as we saw in ch. 3.1.2.
A somewhat less common way of marking the topic is by right-dislocation. The resulting
mode of expression, which is commonly called afterthought-construction, occurs with
some frequency in French (cf. Mallinson & Blake 1981:402, 427). An alternative to E92
is E94.
E94. Je l'ai vu hier, Jean
In French, neither left- nor right-dislocation will create new syntactic functions, because
the subject and the object are already there. They do, however, lead to the
grammaticalization of the anaphoric or cataphoric personal pronouns in the direction of
agreement affixes, as the examples suggest. In other languages (see Hyman 1975:119-
121 and Vincent 1980[i]:170), the afterthought construction may be the only way of
getting a nominal constituent after the verb of the clause. Therefore, if it is grammatical-
ized, the order of the main constituents may change. In particular, verb-initial basic word
order may be assumed to arise in this way. If the subject and object are not universal, but
are in complementary distribution with other organizations of the fundamental syntactic
relations such as the ergative and absolutive, then these syntactic functions may not only
be renovated by changes such as those exemplified or hypothesized above, but may also
be created in the first place. The study of the change of accusative to ergative systems or
vice versa should be able to provide the necessary empirical elucidations here.
The topicalization of the verb is a further instance of a construction which requires some
circumlocution in languages such as German. The construction may be exemplified by
E95.
E95. Kochen tut sie nicht schlecht
GERM As for cooking, she is not bad
In this analytic construction, the verb is split up into its lexical substance, represented by
an infinitive, and its inflectional categories, represented by a finite form of the verb tun
do. The former is preposed, the latter takes the place of the main verb in the sentence.
This is the regular verb topicalization construction in Standard German, to which there
is no simpler alternative. The periphrastic expression is entirely motivated by the
discourse function to be accomplished. However, in Substandard German this motivation
may be absent, and we may have Sie tut nicht schlecht kochen instead of the simple Sie
kocht nicht schlecht (cf. Ronneberger-Sibold 1980:156 and p. 29 above).
A last example of a construction which starts out at the discourse level with a given
functional sentence perspective and then is syntacticized is the Indo-European relative
construction which uses the *kwi-/kwo- pronoun (cf. Lehmann 1984, ch. VI.1). At the
origin of the construction, there is a sequence of two independent sentences which are
connected by functional sentence perspective: the first is the topic, the second the
comment. One nominal in the first clause is marked by the *kwi-/kwo- pronoun, which is
originally an indefinite pronoun. The complex term which is thus implicitly formed by
the first clause is resumed in the next clause by an anaphoric pronoun. A passage such
as From the tree there will be shoots growing out from the ground; those you should
press down into the ground would be expressed in this way. Its Latin manifestation
would look like E96.a.
E96. a. Ab arbore abs terra pulli qui nascentur, eos in terram deprimito.
LATIN The shoots that will grow from the tree from the ground, those you
should press down into the ground. (Cat. agr. 51)
b. In terram deprimito pullos qui ... nascentur.
You should press down into the ground the shoots that will grow ...
However, at the Latin stage the sequence is already slightly syntacticized into a complex
sentence. E96.a shows the so-called correlative diptych. The relative clause is adjoined
to the main clause, which means it is not its constituent and it has to either precede or
follow it. At the origin, the relative clause always precedes the main clause. Later, the
variant b and embedding of the relative clause become possible. Here the erstwhile
indefinite pronoun has become a relative pronoun, the anaphoric pronoun vanishes, and
the functional sentence perspective is no longer bound up with the construction. The
relative construction is fully syntacticized.
Turning now to focus constructions, the most explicit way of marking the focus is the
cleft-sentence. Its syntactic construction in the most diverse languages corresponds
closely to the English pattern it is NP that S. To the extent that this is an autonomous
pattern42, the communicative function of focus is already minimally grammaticalized.
Further grammaticalization will again reduce the syntactic complexity of the construc-
tion, simplifying the morphological means to an unanalyzable focus marker, e.g.
Quechua -mi (Cole 1982:35f) and Somali baa (Sasse 1977[n]:348f), and integrating the
focus NP into the clause as a constituent with a regular syntactic function.
Focus constructions are grammaticalized as the normal expression of a word question in
many languages. The question word is a grammaticalized focus.43 Accordingly, word
questions may be constructed as cleft-sentences, for instance in French and Portuguese.
E97. Qu'est-ce qu'il fait?
FREN What is he doing?
E98. Quando que ele vem?
PORT when is that he comes
When will he come?

Similarly, focus or rhematic particles will accompany question words:
42
The various attempts plainly to derive the cleft-sentence from a relative sentence must be
considered failures; see Lehmann 1984, ch. V.5.3.
43
This is the message of Sasse 1977[n], where the focus is mistakenly called topic. My discussion
has also benefited from correspondence with H.-J. Sasse.
E99. may-pi-mi pundaniki inga-ka kawsa-rka?

QUECH where-LOC-FOC first Inka-TOP live-PAST.3
Where did the first Inka live? (Cole 1982:18)

E100. a. las 'aanood b-uu tegey.
SOM Las Anod FOC-he went
He went to Las Anod.
b. agg-uu tegey?
where:FOC-he went
Where did he go? (Sasse 1977[n]:348)44

Further grammaticalization of this word question construction deletes the focus marker,
leaving only the initial position of the question word, which is the unmarked order in
numerous languages, including English and German. This is another example of the
syntacticization of what was initially motivated by functional sentence perspective.
Another way of grammaticalizing focus markers is to associate them with definite
syntactic functions. In Japanese, this concerns the subject and the direct object, while in
Burmese it concerns these two and, in addition, the indirect object. If there is no
emphasis on these constituents, they are left without case mark. If, however, they are in
focus or otherwise stressed, postnominal case particles are attached to them, as shown in
the following examples:
E101. a. qamei pawa hya-ba-de.
BURM mother handkerchief search-POL-FIN
Mother is looking for a handkerchief. (Klver 1985:4)
b. qamei-ga. pawa hya-ba-de.
mother-SBJ.FOC handkerchief search-POL-FIN
It's mother who is looking for a handkerchief.

c. qamei pawa-gou hya-ba-de.
mother handkerchief-OBJ:FOC search-POL-FIN
It's a handkerchief that mother is looking for. (o.c. 9)
E102. a. Matti (wa) arimasen
JAP match TOP EXIST:POL:NEG
There ren't any matches. (= E93a)
44
buu = baa+uu, agguu = agge+baa+uu.
b. Matti ga arimasen.
match SBJ.FOC EXIST:POL:NEG
There aren't any mtches. or: It's matches what is lacking.

(Jorden 1962:43)
E103. a. Tabako (wa) kaimasita
JAP cigarette TOP buy:POL:PAST
Cigarettes I bought.
b. Tabako o kaimasita.
cigarette OBJ.FOC buy:POL:PAST
I bought cgarettes. or: It's cigarettes what I bought. (o.c.44)

As mentioned above, Burmese -ka. has the Grundbedeutung of an ablative marker, and
-kou that of a directional. Japanese ga goes back to a genitive marker, and o to a perlati-
ve postposition. Thus, from the point of view of their meaning, these morphemes are
relatively little grammaticalized for the syntactic functions which they mark in these
examples. It seems therefore natural that they should be optional and only used for
emphasis. It may be anticipated with some confidence that further grammaticalization
will reduce these particles to plain case markers. The process has already begun in
Japanese; the b-sentences may also be used without emphasis.
Despite the scarcity of relevant historical evidence, the development from discourse to
syntax has attracted the attention of, and has seemed plausible to, several recent writers,
including myself. I should like to quote some passages in order to give an impression of
the importance that is being attributed to this matter. Hagge (1978:22) feels that
on peut considrer les contraintes syntaxiques comme le rsultat du figement,
avec dmotivation plus ou moins importante, d'oprations qui, de smantique-
ment et logiquement interprtables qu'elles ont t, ont pris le caractre
mcanique de l'obligation qui dfinit ce qu'on appelle la grammaire.
Similarly, Sankoff (1977:62) states
that we can describe as syntacticization processes the transition between what
initially appear to be ad hoc speaker strategies and what later can be fairly
confidently described as syntactic rules.
This may be summarized by Givn's (1979[d]:107) generalization that human languages
keep renovating their syntax via the grammaticalization of discourse.
In what has been said above, it is implied that topic and focus, as they appear in left-dis-
location and clefting, are completely free and wild, as it were, since they transcend the
bounds of the simple sentence; whilst theme and rheme may be considered as tamed
forms of the topic and the focus, respectively, since they may structure the simple
sentence.45 In a parallel fashion, the intonation contour is narrowed down on the way
from topic/focus to theme/rheme: the pause after the topic, and the contrastive stress on
the focus, are reduced. This is, of course, not compatible with everything that has been
said about these concepts in the rather heterogeneous literature. However, as far as
intonation is concerned, D. Bolinger (1978) has expressed a similar view. Among the
communicative (attitudinal) functions of the accent, he has the climatic, which tends
to be associated with rightshift, and the emotional, which tends to be associated with
backshift. Assuming that by topic and comment he means what is here called theme
and rheme, we may understand his suggestion (489): The intonational treatment of topic
and comment ... is probably a diluted and grammaticalized form of both the emotional
and the climatic. Such considerations are essential to the approach taken in this work,
because they suggest that functional sentence perspective is not a homogeneous domain
that could neatly be demarcated from semantics and syntax, but that, on the contrary,
some parts of it are closer to free text formation and others are closer to syntax. I
propose, then, somewhat reservedly, the grammaticalization scale of F9 (cf. F1).
F9. From discourse functions to syntactic functions
functional sentence perspective syntax morphology

topic/focus theme/rheme subject/predicate ...
The association of all the first elements and all the second elements of the pairs in the
second row of F9 with each other seems possible, but not compulsory; speaking against
this, we have seen subject markers expressing focus. The dots indicate that this is only
the initial part of a grammaticalization scale and that it can probably be prolonged. A
somewhat speculative guess would be head/attribute as the next stage, still within
syntax (cf. Lehmann 1984, ch. IV.2), although this construction also has different
grammaticalizational origins, as we saw in ch. 3.3.3.
All of this was already anticipated by the father of grammaticalization, A. Meillet
(1912:147f). He compares free word order in Latin, which signals expressive nuances,
with rigid word order in French, which expresses syntactic relations. For instance,
subject and object of the predicate or the attribute of a head in Latin are identified
independently of their sequential position and are distributed in the sentence according
to its functional sentence perspective, whereas the same syntactic functions in French are
identified exactly by the position of the constituents. This shows says Meillet that
word order may be grammaticalized. Two comments may be appended to this. First, as
we shall see in ch. 4.4, reduction of word order freedom should be considered as one
factor in a grammaticalization process which comprises more than that, namely the
45
The theme-rheme structure of the simple sentence is grammaticalized in Imbabura Quechua
(Cole 1982:95-98), which marks the theme by a suffix -ka and the rheme by a suffix -mi.
3.5. Conclusion 107
regulation of functional sentence perspective in terms of syntax, which then continues

into morphology and further as indicated in F1. Second, Meillet's few remarks would
seem to open up a particularly rich field of reliable historical evidence for the sort of
development more postulated than demonstrated in this section.
3.5. Conclusion
In this survey of grammaticalization phenomena, the degree of detail has been rather
uneven, some sections being comparatively thorough, others rather superficial. What is
more, several parts of the grammar have not been mentioned at all. We have seen only
some subordinating and no coordinating conjunctions, no sentence-type or other
particles, no comparative and only a few possessive constructions, and so on. The
material presented, however, should suffice to make my initial claim plausible, namely
that grammaticalization is not a process restricted to some particular part of the
grammatical system, but that it asserts itself everywhere between discourse structure and
morphonology.
While we may safely assume this to be true, it is a different question whether it is
possible for every grammatical category to be formed exclusively by grammaticalization.
We have seen some examples of the grammaticalization of a periphrastic expression to
a simple grammatical formative, where the periphrastic construction was formed not
only by lexemes on their way towards grammaticalization, but also with the help of a
grammatical formative of just the same category which would emerge as the result of the
grammaticalization process. That is, while the grammatical formative of the output did
continue a lexeme of the input, the input construction apparently presupposed the
grammatical category which the output belonged to. Since reasonable discussion of this
problem requires some theoretical background to be laid in the following chapters, we
will defer it to ch. 8.3.
4. PARAMETERS OF GRAMMATICALIZATION
4.1. Theoretical prerequisites

In the preceding chapter we saw plenty of n-tuples of syntagms whose members were
said to be related to each other by grammaticalization and were therefore ordered on a
grammaticalization scale. The criteria by which this was done were mentioned
sporadically but not made explicit. Since different criteria were, in fact, involved, the
reader may well have wondered whether a heterogeneous collection of processes were
not subsumed under one heading on no theoretical grounds. In some cases I have even
put syntagms on a grammaticalization scale which were not historically related. So while
it is certainly time to make the criteria explicit, I should perhaps say first what is not a
criterion. Namely, historical relatedness of two syntagms is not a criterion for their
ordering on a grammaticalization scale. I will take up this issue in ch. 8.1 and mention
here only that grammaticalization asserts itself not only on the diachronic axis and that
not all grammatical change is grammaticalization. As to the former point, different
structural means synchronically present in a language may be arranged on a
grammaticalization scale, e.g. the postpositions and the case suffixes of Turkish. So
while the symbolism x > y has been used in the meaning x is grammaticalized to y,
designating, that is, a historical process, this is only a special case of the general relation
y is grammaticalized more strongly than x or simply y is more grammatical than x. As
to the latter point, it has been made clear from the beginning that analogy goes hand in
hand with grammaticalization and drives grammatical change just as much as
grammaticalization does. So if y historically continues x, x may have been analogically
changed into y. In short, historical relatedness is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition for two syntagms to be arranged on one grammaticalization scale.
Rather than listing the criteria that have been mentioned unsystematically in ch. 3 and
trying to group them systematically, I shall take here the opposite route and present them
deductively. Still, the whole theory behind grammaticalization will not be expounded
here, but only as much of it as is necessary to understand why these are genuine criteria
of grammaticalization.
Language is an activity which consists in the creation of interpersonally available
meanings, i.e. signs. This activity can be more free or more regulated; accordingly, the
ways in which the signs are formed will either depend more on the actual decision of the
language user or more on the social conventions laid down in the grammar. This is the
most general way in which we can explain what we mean by saying that a sign may be
either less or more grammaticalized, respectively.
The concept of freedom concerns the relation between the language user and the signs he
uses. If we abstract from the user, we get a structural analog to this concept, viz. the
autonomy of the sign:46 the more freedom with which a sign is used, the more
autonomous it is. Therefore the autonomy of a sign is converse to its grammaticality, and
grammaticalization detracts from its autonomy. Consequently, if we want to measure the
degree to which a sign is grammaticalized, we will determine its degree of autonomy.
This has three principal aspects. First, in order to be autonomous, a sign must have a
certain weight, a property which renders it distinct from the members of its class and
endows it with prominence in the syntagm. Second, autonomy decreases to the extent
that a sign systematically contracts certain relations with other signs; the factor inherent
in such relations which detracts from autonomy will be called cohesion. Third, a sign is
the more autonomous the more variability it enjoys; this means a momentary mobility
or shiftability with respect to other signs.
So far we have three aspects of grammaticalization, namely the decrease in weight and
variability and the increase in cohesion. These are still rather abstract and difficult to
operationalize as analytic criteria. There are basically two ways provided by linguistic
theory in which we might make them more specific and thus more concrete. We might
either relate them to the content and expression of the sign, or else to the selection and
the combination of the constituents of the sign. From the operational conception assumed
here it follows that the first way of subdividing the criteria will be unhelpful. The content
and the expression of a sign are insolubly associated with each other. There is a
far-reaching isomorphism between them which concerns not only properties of their
constitution but also the quantitative aspect of their composition. There tends to be a
correspondence between the size, or complexity, of the significans and that of the
significatum.47 This isomorphism is maintained in all the linguistic operations and
processes which may affect the sign; whatever may affect the content will have its
consequences for the expression, and vice versa. As for linguistic operations, the homo-
morphism between their application to the content and their application to the expression
of a sign (sometimes called semantics and syntax, respectively) is a fundamental
postulate of several models of grammatical description, among them Montague Gram-
mar. Grammaticalization belongs rather among the linguistic processes. Here, too, the
various factors to be used as criteria of grammaticalization apply to the sign as a
whole, they do not differentiate between content and expression. This will be seen most
46
This notion may go back to Meillet's seminal article, too. Cf. the quotation from Meillet
1912:131 on p. 4 above.
47
See Lehmann 1974. The notion of the semantic complexity of a sign is made explicit in
Lehmann 1978. The postulate of an isomorphism between significans and significatum of the
language sign is an implicit cornerstone of the various conceptions of structural linguistics,
especially structural semantics, and a recurrent theme in the writings of D. Bolinger. It is, however,
rejected by some linguists. Thus, Ronneberger-Sibold (1980:239) is certainly not alone in claiming
that the size of the significans (the length) of a sign is not related to the size of its significatum but
is determined by the frequency of its use. These authors must be asked, first what determines the
frequency of the use of a sign, and second, how those cases of isomorphism which have been
empirically demonstrated are to be explained.
clearly in the parameters of variability. If their effects on content and expression can be
distinguished which is sometimes the case with the parameters of weight and
cohesion , they affect both in a parallel fashion. This was already shown by Meillet
(1912:135-139). I will therefore not subdivide the criteria according to this dichotomy,
but mention the effects of grammaticalization on the expression and the content of the
sign whenever they are discernible as distinct.
On the other hand, the three main aspects of grammaticalization separate into two clearly
distinct sets of criteria when they are related to the fundamental aspects of every
linguistic operation, viz. the selection and the combination of linguistic signs, which I
will henceforth call the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects. The weight of a sign,
viewed paradigmatically, is its integrity, its substantial size, both on the semantic and
phonological sides. Viewed syntagmatically, it is its structural scope, that is, the extent
of the construction which it enters or helps to form. The cohesion of a sign with other
signs in a paradigm will be called its paradigmaticity, that is, the degree to which it
enters a paradigm, is integrated into it and dependent on it. The cohesion of a sign with
other signs in a syntagm will be called its bondedness; this is the degree to which it
depends on, or attaches to, such other signs.48 The paradigmatic variability of a sign is
the possibility of using other signs in its stead or of omitting it altogether. The
syntagmatic variability of a sign is the possibility of shifting it around in its
construction.
T4. The parameters of grammaticalization
axis paradigmatic syntagmatic

parameter
weight integrity structural scope
cohesion paradigmaticity bondedness
paradigmatic syntagmatic
variability
variability variability
These six criteria (varying subsets of which crop up sporadically in the literature49) are
displayed, for ease of reference, in table T4. It should be kept in mind that some of these
parameters correlate positively, others negatively. As grammaticalization increases, the
parameters of cohesion increase as well, while the parameters of weight and variability
48
Bazell (1949:8) calls cohesion what is here called bondedness.
49
Weinreich 1963:169 uses them to make a principled distinction between lexical and
grammatical meaning. Van Roey 1974, ch. I uses them to distinguish classes of prenominal
modifiers.
decrease. This is of no theoretical significance, but merely a consequence of the choice

of terms.
Furthermore, it will be seen that while grammaticalization is a process, the six
parameters are not processes but properties of signs, though variable properties. Strictly
speaking, what these parameters jointly identify is not the grammaticalization but the
autonomy or, conversely, the grammaticality of a sign, that is, the degree to which it is
grammaticalized (see p. 8f). However, mere variation of one of these properties, namely
an increase or decrease in the extent to which a sign has that property, turns it into a
process which affects that sign. Thus we may say that grammaticalization as a process
consists in a correlative increase or decrease as the case may be of all the six
parameters taken together. See also T6, p. 146.
I have been and will be calling these six aspects of grammaticalization variously its
parameters, factors or criteria. The term factor emphasizes that grammaticalization is
a complex phenomenon which is constituted by these aspects and has no existence
independently of them; grammaticalization is made up of these six parts. The terms
parameter and criterion focus on the methodological aspects of the problem. The
above six properties of linguistic signs are criteria insofar as they can be used to order
two functionally similar syntagms on a grammaticalization scale. They are parameters
insofar as grammaticalization may be measured along each of them, and it may then be
verified to which degree they correlate.
Insofar as the six grammaticalization parameters have a common deductive basis, they
are theoretically dependent on each other. However, the theoretical basis has not been
made fully explicit, nor can it be, at least in this study. There are therefore no theoretical
grounds on which to expect a 100% correlation between them. The only thing that we
can safely assume is that they will correlate to a significant degree. On the other hand,
each of the parameters can be examined independently of the others: they are metho-
dically independent of each other. From this viewpoint, the question of whether and to
which degree they correlate can legitimately be considered an empirical question. And if
they correlate, their correlation may be considered explained by the theory. Naturally,
independent application of the parameters to the analysis of natural language syntagms
presupposes that they are made explicit to the degree of becoming quantifiable. I will
return to this problem in ch. 4.4.
The comparison of two signs with respect to their degree of grammaticality presupposes
that they are functionally similar. This is not a formal condition. Theoretically, if all the
parameters were made fully explicit and quantifiable, we might compare any two signs
at all with respect to their grammaticality, for instance the perfect tense in Latin and the
genitive case in Turkish. Obviously, such a comparison would not make sense. Consider
the analogous situation in markedness theory: we may well ask whether /s/ or /f/ is more
marked in English, but it seems unreasonable to compare /s/ and the progressive aspect
as to markedness. The requirement of functional similarity thus boils down to the
general presupposition of any comparison that two things compared with each other
should have something in common. As a methodological prerequisite, the notion of

functional similarity will be taken for granted here. The only thing we have to do is to
specify what kind of functional similarity we mean. Obviously, the Latin perfect und
pluperfect tenses, the Hungarian allative and ablative cases or the English definite and
indefinite articles may be said to be functionally similar. But these cannot be ordered
against each other on a grammaticalization scale, so that this notion of functional
similarity must be excluded. We do not mean that there is a common basis on top of
which there may be varying and contrasting differentiae specificae. Instead, what we find
in a grammaticalization channel is a function common to all the elements in it, the
differences among them being primarily of a quantative nature. This is to say, two
adjacent elements on a grammaticalization scale fulfill the same function, but to different
degrees. For example, a demonstrative and a definite article both have the function to
determine, but the demonstrative determines more specifically than the article. However,
the quantitative differences between adjacent items sum up when the distances on a scale
become greater, and there must certainly come a point where quantity changes to quality.
For example, although a demonstrative pronoun may, in the long run, be
grammaticalized into an affixal noun marker (sign of nominality), we would probably
not want to say that the difference between these two signs is merely of a quantitative
nature. Nevertheless, they still have a common functional basis, which is, so to speak,
laid bare in the most grammaticalized member of a scale (e.g. the noun marker), but
superposed by more specific functional aspects in the less grammaticalized members
(e.g. the demonstrative). In this sense, the functional similarity among the elements of a
grammaticalization scale is represented by its last member, something close to their
common Gesamtbedeutung, the smallest common denominator to which the input of the
scale reduces in the end.
In what follows, we will discuss each of the six parameters in turn, highlighting its
specific aspects and marking it off against other linguistic processes which are similar in
appearance and may interact with grammaticalization, but must be kept distinct from it.
4.2. Paradigmatic parameters
4.2.1. Integrity
The paradigmatic weight or integrity of a sign is its possession of a certain substance
which allows it to maintain its identity, its distinctness from other signs, and grants it a
certain prominence in contrast to other signs in the syntagm. It is this factor of
grammaticalization in which semantic and phonological aspects can be most clearly
distinguished. Decrease in the semantic integrity of a sign is desemanticization; decrease
in the phonological integrity is phonological attrition. The parallelism between these two
processes has been emphasized repeatedly in the literature; see Meillet 1912:135-139 and
Lehmann 1974:114-119. I will subdivide the discussion accordingly.
Phonological attrition (called erosion in Heine & Reh 1984:21ff and decay elsewhere)
is the gradual loss of phonological substance. We may assume here that the significans
of a sign is represented as a two-dimensional matrix of marked phonological features. A
column in the matrix is a segment, and it must contain at least one such feature. Now
attrition may be described as the successive subtraction of phonological features.
Depending on where features are subtracted, this may also lead to the loss of segments;
then the result is, of course, that the sign becomes shorter. With the loss of the last
feature, the whole significans disappears. Since phonological attrition and
desemanticization go hand in hand, this accident normally means that the significatum is
also lost, so that the sign ceases to exist. However, this is not always so, as we shall see
later on. Anyway, this is perhaps the factor which can most straightforwardly be
operationalized, since little more than counting of phonological features is involved.
Examples of phonological attrition picked at random from ch. 3 are the reduction of
Latin ille to French le (frequently /l/), Proto-Indo-European *esti > Engl. is (frequently
/z/), PIE *oinos > Engl. a (i.e. /c/). Heine & Reh (1984:25) have an impressive example
from Duala (Bantu): Proto-Bantu *gide, probably some verb meaning finish, > -gide
COMPL > -ide > > ' (i.e. high tone). The example shows that phonological attrition may
indeed leave exactly one phonological feature of an erstwhile multisegmental signifi-
cans.
It is obvious that phonological attrition is omnipresent in linguistic change. It plays its
role not only in grammaticalization, but affects, in the long run, practically every sign.
Examples outside grammaticalization are the reduction of Latin aqua water to French
eau (i.e. /o/) or of PIE *kwetwores to Engl. four (i.e. /f]:/). Consequently, it would be
wrong to infer from phonological attrition to gramamticalization. We will meet the same
situation with some of the other parameters. None of them is by itself sufficient to define
grammaticalization; it is only by the interplay of all of them that grammaticalization
comes about.
We may preliminarily raise here the question of the causal relationships between
phonological attrition and anything else. On the one hand, some linguists believe that
virtually all of linguistic change is a consequence of the reductive phonological
evolution. The latter leads to the loss of inflection and therefore to grammatical
renovation or even innovation, and it leads to the loss of lexical items and therefore to
constant neology. Phonological attrition itself, in this conception, is essentially a conse-
quence of the articulatory inertia of the speaker who follows the principle of least effort.
Other linguists think rather that phonological attrition is merely a symptom of functional
changes going on in the system, that inflectional morphology gets lost not on
phonological, but on semantosyntactic grounds. I should prefer to treat this certainly
complex problem not in such an isolated fashion, but to gather insights on the
behavior of each of the parameters and then try to obtain an integrated picture of
eventual causal or hierarchical relationships among them. In the other parameters to be
discussed, I will therefore not devote special attention to questions of this sort.
We now turn to the semantic integrity or semanticity of a word. For the sake of
simplicity, I will assume that the semantic representation of a sign consists of a set of
propositions taken from some semantic metalanguage commonly called semantic
components or features, and that those propositions which are conjoined (rather than
disjoined) contribute to the semantic complexity or semanticity of the sign (details in
Lehmann 1978). Desemanticization, or semantic depletion (Weinreich 1963:180f) or
bleaching, is then the decrease in semanticity by the loss of such propositions. As said
above, the last proposition is commonly lost at the moment where the last rest of the
significans also disappears; but as we shall see, either one can continue, at a
submorphemic level, without the other. The operationalization of this criterion is in
principle completely parallel to that of phonological attrition, except that semantic
representations of the required sort are not always easy to come by.
Here are some examples of desemanticization: Latin d down from (the top) (cf. p. 65)
had a delative meaning. That is, in x de y, x is on top of y at some prior time, but then
moves down and away from y. In the Romance development, what got lost first was the
first, specifically delative component, and what remained was the ablative meaning
from. (This is, by the way, an example of a possible leftward prolongation of the scale
in F8, p. 99). On its way towards French de (note the phonological attrition from /d/ to
/d/), the motion component was lost, too, so that the ablative was reduced to the genitive
of, the sheer notion of a relation between two entities. OE sceal owe specifies that
what the subject has to do is to pay an amount of money or otherwise to return something
to somebody. First this specification is lost, and only the meaning that the subject has to
do something is left. Then the deontic component is lost, too, and what remains is an
indication that the subject will do something. Finally, Latin h~c hr~ at this hour was
grammaticalized to Port. agora, Spanish ahora now. Here the generic temporal
component and the deictic element pointing to the time of the speaker go through to the
end, but the specification of the time unit present in the source is lost underway.
Just as phonological attrition, desemanticization occurs outside grammaticalization as
well. I will defer discussion of this phenomenon to ch. 5.1 and dwell here on the
manifold aspects of desemanticization within grammaticalization. The principal interest
of scholars since W. v. Humboldt (1822:52) has centered around die Stufenfolge, in
welcher die ursprngliche Bedeutung sich verloren hat. There are descriptive terms
available for the kind of semantic variation to be found in a grammaticalized item: at the
source of a grammaticalization process, we have the Grundbedeutung (core meaning) of
the item; at the end, we have its Gesamtbedeutung (general meaning; cf. Jakobson 1936).
This relationship manifests itself both diachronically, as the semantic gradation that
Humboldt had in mind, and synchronically, as a specific kind of polysemy. It is
illustrated with particular clarity by F6 on the grammaticalization of coverbs and F8 on
the grammaticalization of cases. The literature contains a wealth of proposals to account
for this kind of ordered semantic variation. Two of them will be selected for review here
(see, in additon, Traugott 1980).
The most conservative conception was first formulated by E. Sapir (1921, ch. V) and has
already been shown (p. 4) to continue certain ideas of Humboldt's. Sapir sets up four
classes of concepts (displayed on p. 5 above) which run the gamut from the most
concrete to the most abstract or, according to his conception, from material content to
pure relation. He gives no criteria by which a meaning can be assigned a place
between these two poles. His proposal has, nevertheless, appeared attractive to more
recent authors and is taken up by irmunskij (1966:83) with the words:
The grammaticalization of the word combination is connected with a greater
or lesser weakening of the lexical meaning of one of its components, its
consistent transformation from a lexically meaningful (presentational) word
into a semi-relational or relational word ... The grammaticalization presents
the result of the abstraction (sometimes more, sometimes less full) of the
concrete lexical meaning which the function word initially had.
Here we meet the same pairs concrete/abstract and presentational/relational. It
appears that while the first opposition is correct, the second has nothing to do with
grammaticalization. Since the initial meaning is richer, more specific, it is also more
palpable, more accessible to the imagination (anschaulich) and, in this sense, more
concrete; whereas the meanings of strongly grammaticalized signs, such as of, will or
and, do not yield mental images, cannot be illustrated and are, in this sense, more
abstract. On the other hand, if relational is not just another word for grammatical, but
has its technical meaning of embodying a relation, i.e. having an open slot for an
argument, then it seems clear that relationality is not affected by grammaticalization.
More specifically, in the most straightforward cases relational lexemes yield relational
grammatical formatives, and absolute lexemes yield absolute grammatical formatives.
Cross-overs may occur, but are not part of the grammaticalization process (cf. p. 60).
Typical examples include: Latin de > French de, both relational; Pre-Latin *ne-hilum
not a thread > Lat. nihil nothing, both absolute; Latin ille > French le, both relational,
if determiners, both absolute (or only anaphorically relational), if pronouns; etc.
One point, however, may be conceded: The relationality (or absoluteness) of an item is
part of its grammatical features. Grammaticalization rips off the lexical features until
only the grammatical features are left.50 Consequently, the relationality of an item is
normally conserved while most of the original semantic features are lost in grammatic-
alization. Therefore, it is frequently the case that the end-product of the process signifies
little more than a kind of grammatical relation. French de is again an example.
The second proposal which has some adherents today can be traced back to H. Frei
(1929: 233):
Examin du point de vue le l'volution, le langage prsente un passage
incessant du signe expressif au signe arbitraire. C'est ce qu'on pourrait appeler
50
This is a major theme in Givn 1973.
la loi de l'usure: plus le signe est employ frquemment, plus les impressions
qui se rattachent sa forme et sa signification s'moussent. Du point de vue
statique et fonctionnel, cette volution est contre-balance par un passage en
sens inverse: plus le signe s'use, plus le besoin d'expressivit cherche le
renouveler, smantiquement et formellement.
This passage has been quoted here in full because it contains a whole grammaticalization
theory in a nutshell. We shall return to other aspects of it later on and concentrate here on
the opposition expressive/arbitrary. It implies the equivalence expressive =
non-arbitrary = motivated. This conception apparently relies on the fact that at the
beginning of a grammaticalization scale we have periphrastic or even textually free
constructions whose constructional meaning is motivated either by the syntax or even by
functional sentence perspective. These are more expressive in the sense in which more
transparent, more sumptuous constructions are more expressive than opaque or reduced
ones. Compare, for example, the use of cleft-sentences with that of focus particles in
focussation, the appositive juxtaposition of an anaphoric attribute to the use of a plain
attribute in attribution, or the use of a relational noun and that of a simple adposition
(e.g. in back of vs. behind) in adverbial relations. The same opposition is even valid for
the single lexeme vs. grammatical formative. To signify DATIVE with the help of a
coverb with the basic meaning give is palpably more expressive than to use a mere to
or even a case suffix for this purpose, because it makes the formation of a mental image
for a grammatical concept possible; whereas Engl. to evokes no associations, might as
well be called otherwise and is, in this sense, arbitrary. Indefinite pronouns and negations
are further examples of categories which lose their initial emphasis in the course of
grammaticalization.
This concept of demotivation (cf. the quotation from Hagge on p. 105 above) has been
extended by recent writers, with farreaching consequences. Givn (1979[u]:208-233)
opposes, within the left half of a grammaticalization scale (F1), the pragmatic mode to
the syntactic mode, characterizing the pragmatic mode as more transparent. Vincent
(1980[i]:170-172) equates weakly grammaticalized = pragmatically motivated = iconic
and strongly grammaticalized = unmotivated = arbitrary. Finally, Plank (1979[f]:622)
opposes functionally based coding to grammaticalized, functionally invariable
language-particular coding, where the former observes only universal requirements of
semantic distinctness, while the latter is largely arbitrary. Plank's equation pragmatical-
ly/functionally motivated = universal and arbitrary = language-particular can also be
found in the two other sources quoted. I will defer a fuller discussion of the problems
involved here until ch. 6.4 and 7.3.
We may anticipate that there is doubtless a grain of truth in these suggestions; but it is
easy to overstate the case. There is an inveterate preconception in much of the linguistic
literature which may be expressed by the equation grammaticalized = unmotivated =
non-functional (or even dysfunctional). The reasoning behind this is, of course: if
something is desemanticized, it ends up having no meaning; if it has no meaning, it
contributes nothing to the message and is, therefore, functionless. Examples that have
been raised repeatedly in the literature include the category of gender as it appears, e.g.,
in Latin or German, the English infinitive marker to and the do appearing in interrogative
and negative sentences (cf. Sapir 1921:97f, Lyons 1968:421). We shall see in 4.2.3 that,
quite on the contrary, the more grammaticalized an element gets, the more functional in
its language system it becomes; and again, if something is not grammaticalized, it is not
functional in its language system.
One particular type of demotivation deserves some attention here. As is commonly
known, there is, within the formal process of reduplication, a gamut of completeness,
leading from total reduplication, as in Indonesian orang-orang (man-man) men, via
syllable reduplication, as in Hua kire'-are' (corn-RDP) lots of corn (Haiman 1980:222),
to segment-reduplication, as in Latin pe-pul-i (RDP-drive.PF-1.SG) I drove. Parallel to
the decrease in substantive completeness, there is an increase in phonological regularity
and thus formal grammaticalization. Again in parallel, we have a decrease in the iconici-
ty of the meaning represented by the reduplication (cf. Andr 1978 and Heine & Reh
1984:46-48). Full reduplication tends to signify intensification; for instance, with nouns,
a multitude or collectivity, and with verbs, an intense or repeated action. More
domesticated reduplication may signify grammatical meanings a bit more remote from
the basis, such as plural or durativity. Arbitrary functions, such as the formation of
perfect stems in ancient Indo-European languages, are presumably only found in fully
phonologized reduplication.
Thus, reduplication illustrates in a particularly clear fashion what is meant by demotiva-
tion in grammaticalization. The example might appear to be problematic, though, since
it differs in a crucial respect from all the other instances of grammaticalization we have
considered so far. Only here, a grammaticalization channel appears to be defined by a
formal process, instead of by a function, or set of functions. On closer inspection,
however, the exception proves to be a matter of perspective. We have taken the
onomasiological perspective throughout, starting from functionally defined
grammaticalization scales and occasionally narrowing down on a grammaticalization
channel as a particular diachronic-structural instantiation of a scale. In a semasiological
perspective, we could set up purely structural scales, based on means of expression such
as prefixation, suffixation, reduplication etc. If we took such formal means as the point
of departure and sought, in an inductive and semasiological procedure, the functions
associated with them, this would lead to results of varying specificity. While all the
functions fulfilled by prefixation might well turn out to have nothing in common, and
similarly those fulfilled by suffixation and infixation but this would have to be veri-
fied , reduplication does appear to have a uniform functional basis, namely
multiplication/intensification. This is doubtless a consequence of the fact that the formal
process of reduplication is much more narrowly defined than the other ones, which
correlates with the further fact that it is much less used in grammars than the other
processes.
We should finally note that there is one aspect of the reduction of the paradigmatic
weight of a sign in which the distinction between processes affecting the significans and
processes affecting the significatum is not so easily made. This is the loss of the ability
to inflect. This has been used as an independent criterion of grammaticalization in Givn
1975:84; but it is an integral part of the reduction of the integrity of the sign. A clear
example are coverbs; when these develop into adpositions or conjunctions, they cease to
take affixes according to the verbal categories of the language. The history of the English
modals is a related example.
Sometimes one inflectional subcategory becomes invariably associated with the
grammaticalized lexical item and gets petrified on it (cf. p. 121 on fossilization). For
example, relational nouns on their way towards adpositions first take only a limited
number of case affixes, viz. only local ones. This is the situation in Quechua (see p. 72)
and Hittite (p. 81). In a second step, the choice is reduced to one case affix, and this is
then welded together with the noun to yield an adposition. This is the situation of the
genuine postpositions of Turkish (see p. 71). German wrde and mchte are auxiliaries
of the subjunctive and desiderative, respectively. They only occur in finite forms of what
is formally the past subjunctive and are no longer synchronically related to werden
become and mgen may, like.
It would be wrong to explain the loss of the ability to inflect either by phonological
attrition or by desemanticization alone. Both interact to constitute what might be called
morphological degeneration. What is lost is not some arbitrary phonological or
semantic feature, but an inflectional category. The loss of all inflectional categories is the
symptom of a change in status. A grammaticalized sign moves down the grammatical
levels, from phrase via word form to morpheme. The last step, in particular, involves, in
the first place, its transition from a major category to a minor one. We will have to take
this point up in the next section.
4.2.2. Paradigmaticity
What is meant here by paradigmatic cohesion or paradigmaticity is the formal and
semantic integration both of a paradigm as a whole and of a single subcategory into the
paradigm of its generic category. This requires that the members of the paradigm be
linked to each other by clear-cut paradigmatic relations, especially opposition and
complementarity. The most superficial and evident aspect of paradigmaticity is the sheer
size of the paradigm. Consider the grammaticalization of local relational nouns to
adpositions. In English, there is a fair number of such nouns as front, back, top, bottom,
interior etc. which may be used to form periphrastic prepositions. These are opposed to
a closed but still relatively large set of secondary local prepositions such as beyond,
before, within, amidst etc. Finally, we have the small set of primary local prepositions
including in, on, at, from, to and perhaps some others.
Similar numerical relationships may be found in the grammaticalization of numeral
or possessive classifiers to noun classes and genders: the former may range in the
dozens, whereas the latter are usually few, often only two. Again, consider personal
pronouns (cf. p. 33f). In Japanese, these are grammaticalized very little and agglomerate
to a poorly integrated paradigm of at least twelve forms for the first and second persons
(unmarked for number) which offer a choice among different social relationships (see
Alpatov 1980 and Coulmas 1980). English, on the other hand, possesses fully gramma-
ticalized personal pronouns forming a tightly knit paradigm of five distinct forms. Lastly,
the grammaticalization of aspect to tense is always accompanied by a reduction in the
size of the paradigm. In the vast majority of languages, there are no more than three
tenses, present, past and future, and often there are only two, either future and non-future
(= REAL), e.g. in Dyirbal or in Turkish nominalized clauses, or past and non-past, e.g. in
Walbiri. Aspect, on the other hand, can be differentiated in rich paradigms. Portuguese,
for instance, has three tenses, with an analytic, slightly aspectual alternative for the
synthetic future (vou + inf. inf.-ei), but at least the aspectual forms shown in T5.
T5. Tense/aspect periphrases in Portuguese

auxiliary full verb meaning
estou por + inf. inceptive
estou a + inf.
progressive
estou + ger.
vou/ando + ger. durative
venho a + inf.
resultative
venho + ger.
acabo/venho de + inf. recent past
tenho + part.pass. perfect
The distinction between open sets of lexical items and closed sets of grammatical(ized)
items is related to that between major and minor categories or word classes (cf. Lyons
1968:435f). A lexical item belongs, roughly, in one of the major classes of nouns,
adjectives, numerals or verbs. The minor classes of grammatical items are, essentially,
pronouns, auxiliaries (and the like), adpositions and conjunctions (particles and
interjections remain unclassified). All the major classes have been shown to furnish
items which enter into grammaticalization channels, and all the minor classes have been
shown to be formed, or at least to receive members, through grammaticalization. For
example, we have seen full verbs becoming auxiliaries, and nouns becoming numeral
classifiers.
However, both the distinction between open and closed sets and the one between major
and minor categories are gradual. Whether a word belongs already in the minor category
of adpositions or yet in the major category of transitive verbs is a matter of degree of
grammaticality. Sets are not either open or closed, but rather the fewer members they
have the more closed they are. Furthermore, the distinction between major and minor
categories reflects only certain segments at the beginning of a grammaticalization scale,
since it presupposes words. The process, however, in which sets develop into paradigms
and become ever smaller and more closed continues on the right half of a
grammaticalization scale and concerns bound morphemes just as much as free
morphemes.
The size of a paradigm is, to repeat it, a superficial and not always reliable aspect of
paradigmaticity. Over and above its sheer size, the integration of the paradigm has more
intrinsic and less easily quantifiable aspects. It also comprises the formal and functional
homogeneity of the paradigm, i.e. a certain amount of similarity among its members and
of regularity in their differences. For example, the Japanese case particles all have the
canonical form (C)V, and the Turkish case suffixes have the form -(C)V(n). Latin
personal endings on the present active verb are monophonematic in the singular and bi-
or triphonematic in the plural, all but one allomorph ending in a consonant. All Latin
negative indefinite pronouns begin with n. All English interrogative pronouns, with the
partical exception of how, have an expression feature in common which has enabled the
denomination of the class as wh- pronouns. Bloomfield 1933:256f demonstrates how
formally homogeneous the personal pronouns are in several unrelated languages.
On the semantic side, the members of a paradigm have a common semantic basis with
varying differentiae specificae. This would be brought out by a componential analysis
and is reflected in traditional terminology by the fact that there is a generic category
name for the whole paradigm and oppositive names for the specific subcategories (e.g.
local cases: locative, ablative, allative).
Such paradigmaticity is gradually reached in the process of grammaticalization.
Categories grammaticalized very little do not constitute such tightly integrated
paradigms. Consider, for example, the formal variation exhibited in the set of Portuguese
aspects displayed above. Again, at the level of adpositions, many languages such as
Mandarin have both pre- and postpositions, with rather heterogeneous functions (see
Hagge 1975). At the level of case markers, most languages have only suffixes. Numeral
classifiers often divide up into a number of heterogeneous subclasses with different
distribution and formal properties; noun classes and genders are much more
homogeneous.
The process of paradigmatic integration or paradigmaticization leads to a levelling out
of the differences with which the members were equipped originally. Genetic differences
among prepositions of different origins, which account for their different behavior as
long as they are weakly grammaticalized, are adjusted when they develop into primary
prepositions. This can be seen, e.g., in German whrend = Engl. during, which no longer
behave as participles. In German, primary prepositions govern either the dative or the
accusative, but not the genitive. Secondary prepositions of nominal origin do, of course,
take the genitive; but the more grammaticalized they are, the more they prefer the dative.
The fate of wegen because of is widely known. Finally, the infinitives of ancient Greek
derive from (locative) case forms (see Rix 1976:196f, 237-239). In historical times,
however, they are well integrated into the conjugation paradigm and participate in the
verbal categories of tense, aspect and voice.
In many cases of paradigmaticization, grammaticalized elements join preexistent

paradigms and assimilate to their other members. The ancient Romance synthetic future,
which assimilates to the suffixal tense categories is a clear case in point. Such
phenomena do not result exclusively from grammaticalization; analogical levelling plays
a great role in them. This does not, however, mean that paradigmaticization can be
reduced to the workings of analogy. The formation of new paradigms, as, e.g., the
paradigm of the definite and indefinite articles, would be impossible if it were not part of
the more comprehensive grammaticalization process.
In the writing of a grammar, there is the notorious problem of whether and to what extent
periphrastic constructions have to be admitted. Noone doubts that the synthetic verb
forms and primary prepositions must be treated in a grammar; but disagreement arises
when analytical verbs forms or compound prepositions are to be enumerated. The
criterion that has commonly been employed by grammarians though with different
conclusions is that of paradigmaticity. Thus want does not participate in analytic verb
forms since I want to write is formed according to the same rules of syntax as I intend to
write and similar constructions with an open set of governing verbs. But will does
participate in analytic verb forms because there is a paradigm containing I will write and
a few similar constructions.
The existence of a paradigm has even been made a presupposition of the correct
application of the terms analytic or periphrastic. Thus Matthews (1981:55) defines:
When a form in a paradigm consists of two or more words it is periphrastic. This
implies that if there is no paradigm, there is no periphrastic word form, but merely a
combination of words (cf. irmunskij 1966:82-87). Whether or not there is a paradigm
is, however, not always easy to decide or even in principle a matter of a yes-no decision.
When the compound constructions are paralleled, in all relevant respects, by synthetic
forms which belong to the same superparadigm, then the decision is facilitated. If such
a parallelism does not obtain, as e.g. in the case of the Portuguese aspect formations,
there can be only a more-or-less decision, and the question of whether such syntagms
must be treated in the grammar becomes rather a question of the volume of the grammar.
At the right end of a grammaticalization scale, paradigms are not formed, but reduced.
The most grammaticalized categories of a language system usually consist of a
two-member paradigm, i.e. a binary opposition. Typical examples are number
(singular/plural), gender (masculine/feminine), noun class (animate/inanimate, or hu-
man/non-human), tense (nonpast/past, or real/future), mood (indicative/subjunctive), etc.
All of these can be privative oppositions; i.e. the opposition may consist only in the
presence of a sign vs. its absence. This constitutes the highest degree of paradigmaticity.
One more step of grammaticalization, and the paradigm ceases to exist. Its further fate
may be called fossilization (see Heine & Reh 1984:35f). However, it is not meant that
fossilization presupposes the reduction of the paradigm to a binary opposition. Anything
that falls out of a paradigm in the process of its reduction may fossilize. Examples are
the Germanic pronominal adverbs, e.g. Engl. where, how, why etc., which are fossilized
remnants of cases that have fallen out of the pronominal paradigm, or the Germanic
preterite-presents (see p. 24), which remind us that the synthetic perfect was once a
member of the Indo-European tense paradigm. Such cases constitute the main argument
for calling the last phase of grammaticalization lexicalization (as does Givn (1979[u]:
209). The fossilized forms can indeed no longer be obtained according to the rules of the
grammar, but must be listed in the lexicon.
A further factor which accompanies paradigmaticization is increasing irregularity. At
first, this seems to be in conflict with the general notion of grammaticalization as
subjection to rules of grammar. However, this notion is not to be interpreted as
increasing regularity. What it does mean has been explained on p. 116: the rules
governing the use of the grammaticalized item are less semantically motivated and
increasingly arbitrary, purely formal. This includes the possibility of increasing
irregularity as a consequence of the reduction of the paradigm and the desemanticization.
The loss of semantic distinctions within a paradigm may mean that forms which had
been opposed to each other become variants. Sometimes one variant does not
consistently oust the other, but one of them becomes fixed on some lexemes and the
other variant on other lexemes.
Some examples: The Latin perfect has a number of allomorphs, which are distributed
according to conjugation class. Among them are the reduplication, as in cu-curr-i I ran,
and an -s-suffix, as in scrip-s-i I wrote. While the former continues a
Proto-Indo-European perfect formative, the latter is a former aorist marker. The aorist
itself was semantically fused with the perfect in Latin. The Latin future has basically two
allomorphs, -e- and -b, which are again distributed according to conjugation class; e.g.
capi-e-t he will seize, but mone-b-it he will admonish. -b- comes from PIE *bhew-
become, while -e- is a former subjunctive sign. The inherited subjunctive itself was
renovated by the inherited optative, which ceased to exist as such.
Apart from this morphological irregularity which is a direct consequence of
paradigmaticization, there is also irregularity as a development of the allomorphy which
arises mainly through morphological coalescence. For example, the accusative singular
in Ancient Greek has a great many allomorphs which can hardly be covered by a
synchronic rule; nevertheless, they have a common origin in the PIE suffix *-m. The
discussion of such phenomena belongs in the chapter on bondedness; but it is significant
that distinct factors of grammaticalization bring about identical results.
Morphological irregularity may already affect the (grammaticalized) sign when it is yet
a free morpheme; it is then called suppletion. Examples: The English and German verb
to be is made up from three originally different verbs. Is = ist comes from PIE *Hes-
EXIST; was = war are remnants of Proto-Germanic *wes- live; and been or bin am
continue forms of PIE *bhew become. Again, while Lat. ire go was almost
exclusively a lexical verb with no suppletion, the same verb in French uses three stems,
viz. all-, va- and ir-; and this has been grammaticalized to form an analytic future. While
this is a frequent situation with grammatical words, it must be emphasized that
suppletion is not restricted to these, but occurs also in lexemes, e.g. in good better.
The common denominator of all the suppletive paradigms is, however, the low
semanticity of the stem. If the varying stems had a high semanticity, they would not be
susceptible to integration into a paradigm.
4.2.3. Paradigmatic variability

Paradigmatic variability is the freedom with which the language user chooses a sign. The
principal alternatives to choosing some sign are either choosing another member of the
same paradigm or choosing no member of that paradigm, i.e. leaving the whole generic
category unspecified. We will subdivide the discussion accordingly and deal first with
intraparadigmatic, then with transparadigmatic variability. In both cases, the freedom of
choice among various fillers of a given slot including zero is, of course,
constrained by the context. This factor will be kept constant here as far as possible. We
will ask whether, given a context, paradigmatic variation is at all allowed and how it is
connected with the degree of grammaticality.
Starting now with intraparadigmatic variability, we must first specify that the kind of
variation we are interested in is not free variation but the selection of alternatives which
are in opposition. Free variation does not correlate with the degree of grammaticality and
probably correlates with nothing, since it is in principle unsystematic. The selection of
opposite members of the paradigm, however, is dictated by the grammar to the degree
that the whole paradigm is grammaticalized. Therefore intraparadigmatic variability
decreases with increasing grammaticalization.
One example of this has already been discussed (p. 54f), viz. that of numeral classifiers.
Classifier systems of different languages vary somewhat along the parameter of
intraparadigmatic variability, since in some of them a noun can be allocated relatively
freely to a class not inherent in it, while in others there is little choice of the classifier,
given a noun. Examples are the Burmese and the Mandarin systems, respectively. Noun
classes and genders classify nouns, too; but here intraparadigmatic variability is on the
whole reduced in comparison with numeral classifiers (see Serzisko 1981 and Lehmann
1982[U], 6.3). The shift of the nominal class becomes increasingly a matter of lexical
derivation which is possible only within well-defined limits. The gender in Indo-Europe-
an languages, for example, is fixed for most nouns, except that motion is possible for
some animate nouns such as Lat. lupus lupa wolf she-wolf.
Consider also free personal pronouns vs. personal agreement affixes. Given a transitive
sentence in English or German, the choice of the object, including pronouns of varying
person, number or gender, is, apart from selection restrictions, completely free. If the
sentence is translated into a language with object agreement of the verb, such as Navaho,
Ancash Quechua or Swahili, the choice of the pronominal element on the verb is no
longer free, but determined by the nature of the nominal object.
As long as cases are weakly grammaticalized, they render the NP which they are attached
to largely independent of the context and are rather freely substitutable.
E104. A gyerek jtsz-ik az asztal-on

HUNG DEF child cplay-3.SG DEF table-SUPER
The child is playing on the table

In E104, the case suffix on the noun may be substituted by several other local case
suffixes such as -nl by, -ban in, and even non-local ones such as -val with. When
cases are more grammaticalized, they will require more specific contexts in order to
signal different relations. They will, for instance, be combined with adpositions. We
have seen on p. 82f how the choice of case is severely constrained if it combines with an
adposition, to the point where the case is governed by the adposition and variability is
reduced to zero. Similarly, the more grammaticalized cases are attracted into the valence
of the verb, become governed by it and thus lose their intraparadigmatic variability.
This parameter is difficult to operationalize, firstly because substitutability itself is
difficult to quantify, but more so because the dependency on the context varies
enormously from one grammatical category to another. There are typical relational
categories such as case, which are contextually bound to a large extent, and on the other
hand such non-relational categories as nominal number or verbal tense, which can vary
rather freely in any context, according to the meaning to be conveyed.
We now turn to what above has been called transparadigmatic variability. By this we
mean the freedom of the language user with regard to the paradigm as a whole. The
paradigm represents a certain grammatical category, and its members, the subcategories
(or values) of that category. There may then be a certain freedom in either specifying the
category by using one of its subcategories, or leaving the whole category unspecified. To
the extent that the latter option becomes constrained and finally impossible, the category
becomes obligatory. We shall therefore use the term obligatoriness as a more handy
converse equivalent of transparadigmatic variability. Correspondingly, the reduction
of transparadigmatic variability will occasionally be called by the neologism
obligatorification.
Obligatoriness of the category as a whole and restrictions on intraparadigmatic
variability are sometimes difficult to keep apart, namely when the paradigm contains a
formally unmarked member. For example, the use of the unmarked singular instead of
the plural may either be an instance of intraparadigmatic variability or may indicate the
optionality of the category of number. This shows that the parameters of
intraparadigmatic variability and of obligatoriness (which I have kept distinct in earlier
studies, e.g. Lehmann 1982[U]:234ff) are so similar that they must be subsumed under
one parameter of paradigmatic variability.
Examples of increasing obligatoriness are not difficult to come by. The category of
number, which has just been mentioned, was already discussed from this viewpoint on
p. 10. There we saw that the specification of nominal number in Turkish is obligatory
only in specific contexts, whereas it must be specified for every noun in any context in
Latin. The chapter on number (3.3.1.1) provides a wealth of examples with varying
degrees of obligatoriness. Recall also that numeral classifiers, whose high intrapara-
digmatic variability has been mentioned above, are generally optional in Persian.
Another typical example is the development of articles. A superficial examination of
Latin texts shows that there is no syntactic rule which forces a determiner on a noun.
More specifically, there is no tendency of definite nouns to be preceded by ille (D3) if
there is no other demonstrative, and there is likewise no tendency of indefinite nouns to
take unus one in the absence of other indefinite determiners. Yet precisely these
tendencies arise and take over to the point of obligatoriness in the development towards
the modern Romance languages. In French, Italian, Spanish etc., it is in most contexts
impossible to use a singular noun and, with local variation, also a plural noun
without an article, that is, without specifying the category of definiteness. The same has,
of course, happened in the Germanic languages. Details of this development in African
languages are in Greenberg 1978, 3.3.-3.5.
The same increase in obligatoriness may be observed in the development of personal
pronouns as discussed in ch. 3.2.1.2. In Standard Italian the free personal pronouns are
used in subject position for emphasis only; there is no tendency to insert them when the
sentence otherwise has no subject. In Portuguese there is some sociolectal variation in
this respect and precisely this tendency makes itself felt in the substandard sociolects. In
French, finally, the subject position must not be left open but must be occupied by a
personal pronoun if no NP is there. (Since these personal pronouns no longer carry any
emphasis, the subsystem of emphatic pronouns has been renovated; see ch. 7.2). A
similar continuum can be observed in the modern Slavic languages.
It has been mentioned that paradigmatic variability depends on the context. It is a
principle of information theory that the conditioned probability of a sign usually differs
from its absolute probability, and that these differences increase proportionally to an
increase in the conditioning context. Limiting ourselves to the favorable contexts, we
may say that the more we enlarge the context, the more a specific sign becomes
obligatory. In Amharic, for instance, the verb has object agreement affixes only if the
object is definite. Restricting the context of the agreement affixes to the verb, we would
say that they are optional. Enlarging it to include the whole VP, we will say that they are
obligatory in certain contexts and excluded in others. In languages such as Latin, the
subjunctive is optional at the clause level. If one takes the introductory conjunction into
account, many of them govern the subjunctive. Some conjunctions still admit either
mood. However, once the context is enlarged to include the matrix verb, there is usually
no longer a choice between indicative and subjunctive. An increase in the obligatoriness
of a sign is therefore a decrease in the level of grammatical structure on which it is
obligatory. This might be one possibility to operationalize the criterion of obligatoriness.
Another way of looking at the increase of obligatoriness is to view it as the dropping of
restrictions posed on the nature of the context, that is, of selection restrictions (cf.
Vincent 1980[i]:56 and Serzisko 1981:99f). The Amharic object suffix on the verb will
gradually evolve into an unrestricted object agreement suffix to the extent that conditions
on the nature of the object are loosened. The next step would be the appearance of the
affix not only when the object is definite but also when it is human. This is essentially
the situation in Swahili. The final extension, which includes agreement with indefinite
non-human objects, is realized in Navaho. Restrictions on agreement may also be of a
purely syntactic nature. Agreement at a relatively low level of grammaticalization is
sometimes restricted to the constellation where the agreement triggerer precedes the
agreeing term. With proceeding grammaticalization, agreement becomes obligatory
independently of the position of the agreement triggerer. So here increasing obligatori-
ness may be seen as the dropping of a syntactic restriction. On the whole complex of
agreement in connection with animacy and grammaticalization, see Comrie 1981[L]:
184f and Lehmann 1982[U], 6.2.
Another example was seen above on p. 60f. Infinite complements introduced by for ... to
originated in sentences such as I brought a book for him to read, where the complement
of for, the subsequent subordinate subject, is a beneficiary in the main clause and where
the infinitive complement expresses an action which he is expected to be able to
accomplish with the help of the benefaction. These conditions were then dropped, and
consequently we use these structural means in sentences such as For George to marry an
unbaptized girl is highly unlikely. Also in ch. 3.3.2, we have seen how a verbum dicendi
can be used to introduce indirect speech. When the restrictions on the nature of the
embedded clause are eased, it may be grammaticalized to a conjunction introducing any
kind of complement clause.
If a concept is highly grammaticalized, it becomes syntagmatically compatible with other
concepts of the same semantic domain which are less grammaticalized and which would
appear to contradict it (cf. Paul 1920, ch. 15). For instance, sentence type is
grammaticalized illocutionary force. An interrogative sentence may be used with the
force of a request and then contain an adverb fitting that illocutionary force, e.g. please.
Similarly, gender is so highly grammaticalized and, accordingly, carries so little
information about sex that in gender languages, each gender is compatible with each sex.
The same goes for the combination of tenses with temporal adverbs.
The dropping of restrictions on the use of a structural means implies that this becomes
more ubiquitous, that its distribution is extended. For instance, definiteness markers start
cooccurring first with other definite, then even with indefinite elements; cf. p. 34f. This
expansion has struck some authors as an essential characteristic of grammaticalization.
Kuryowicz (1965:41) speaks of the increase in the range of a category, and likewise
Lord (1976:184-188) and Heine & Reh (1984:39-41) have emphasized the role of
expansion in grammaticalization. While there is no doubt that expansion occurs and is
virtually indistinguishable from increasing obligatoriness, it does not seem advisable to
isolate it as a criterion of grammaticalization, because expansion occurs also in analogi-
cal transfer. If a conjunction today introduces only indirect speech, but tomorrow also
introduces clauses depending on verba sentiendi, this may be either a phenomenon of
grammaticalization or one of analogical transfer. I will devote ch. 5.4 to the distinction
between these processes; but it may be anticipated here that it is far from clear, and
therefore the expansion of distribution should be used with care as a criterion of gram-
maticalization.
Lack of paradigmatic variability thus accounts for the ubiquity of a feature in the texts of
a language. Its textual frequency justifies the inference that it is important for the
formation of grammatical structures in that language. The more grammaticalized a
feature is, the higher is its system relevance, at least up to a certain point. We are, for
instance, justified in assuming that the article plays an important role in the systems of
the Germanic, Romance and a lot of other languages precisely because of its pronounced
obligatoriness; and the same goes for the noun classes in Bantu languages or the aspects
of the Yucatec verb. We will pursue this point in ch. 7.2. Suffice it here to say that the
implications for system relevance have led some authors to regard obligatoriness as the
essential feature of grammaticality (cf. also p. 10f). R. Jakobson (1959:489) reports that
F. Boas regarded the obligatoriness of grammatical categories as the specific feature
which distinguishes them from lexical meanings, and he characterizes grammar by the
following task:
it determines those aspects of each experience that must be expressed.
And on p. 492:
Grammar, a real ars obligatoria, as the Schoolmen used to call it, imposes
upon the speaker its yes-or-no decisions.
Because of its implications for system relevance, obligatoriness is doubtless an important
factor in grammaticalization. Two considerations should, however, keep us from over-
emphasizing its importance. First, if the obligatoriness of an element increases to the
point that it becomes omnipresent, it becomes, at the same time, meaningless. Categories
that are on the verge of this are the nominalizing -s of Plateau Penutian (see p. 34) and
the suffix -im on all transitive verbs in Tok Pisin (see p. 37). But the processes which
constitute grammaticalization go on, and so we get elements which are beyond the verge,
that is, which no longer function in the grammar. These include the long vowel which
terminates virtually all nouns in Hausa (see p. 50), the -n-infix inserted in the present
stem of such Latin verbs as tango touch, and the reduplication of perfect verbs in Late
Latin. These phenomena have ceased to play a role in the grammar. The point will be
taken up in ch. 5.3. Here it suffices to recall the considerations of p. 116 and to note that
the functionality of an element in a language system does increase proportionately to its
grammaticalization, but that there comes a point which we have been regarding as the
end of a grammaticalization scale where the element loses, together with the last bit
of semanticity, its grammatical function and is put on the shelf of linguistic history. This
must be kept in mind if one wants to infer from obligatoriness to system relevance.
The second qualifying observation is simply that obligatoriness cannot be isolated from
the other factors of grammaticality. While we might eventually consider this one
parameter sufficient for the determination of the degree of grammaticality, it must not be
overlooked that the others are necessary and therefore essential, too. Nothing can
become obligatory in a grammar which is not also grammaticalized to a certain degree
according to the other parameters. We shall return in ch. 4.4.2 to the problem of the
correlation among the parameters.
4.3. Syntagmatic parameters
4.3.1. Structural scope

The syntagmatic weight or structural scope of a grammatical means is the structural size
of the construction which it helps to form. The structural size of a construction will be
regarded, in the absence of more precise criteria, as being determined by its level of
grammatical structure (which, for many purposes, may be regarded as its constituent
structure level). For example, the structural scope of a Turkish case suffix is the NP it
follows, while the scope of a Latin case suffix is the noun (in the traditional sense). The
structural scope of a sign decreases with increasing grammaticalization. Vincent (1980
[I]:56f) speaks of a reduction or limitation in the subcategorization frame. The
diagnostic lowering of the level of grammatical structure has been regarded by some as
the essential feature of a process they called condensation (see p. 9) and which we will
here subsume under grammaticalization (despite my qualms of p. 9f).
Let us illustrate the decrease in structural scope of a grammatical sign. The example of
case markers just mentioned may be generalized (and idealized) as follows: A relational
noun takes an NP with case as its complement; the same goes for an adposition. An
agglutinative case affix attaches to a caseless NP, and a fusional case affix to a noun.
Similarly, a demonstrative pronoun acts at the NP level, but the definite article is a noun
affix in several languages. Recall also the observations on the intrusion of nominal cate-
gories into the NP by way of agreement (p. 52).
An auxiliary of the have or be type starts as a main verb which takes a nominalized
VP as a complement; that is, it starts at the clause level. When it has become an
auxiliary, it functions at the VP level. A relevant example is the formation of the
Quechua habitual aspect described on p. 27. The combination of a function verb with a
full verb may first yield a serialized verb (something between VP and V), but ends up as
an inflected verb. This may, in its turn, become an auxiliary, and so forth, so that we may
even get all the way down to the stem level. A free personal pronoun in object position
is an immediate constituent of a VP; but when it becomes an agreement affix, it merely
helps to form a verb.
Examples are also available from levels above the clause level. Complex sentences
formed by rules of topicalization and focussation may shrink to simple sentences as
communicative sentence perspective becomes syntax (ch. 3.4.2.3). We have also seen
two clauses being integrated into one through grammaticalization of an anaphoric
demonstrative to a copula (ch. 3.1.2). A traditional hypothesis of long standing is the
development of Indo-European hypotaxis out of parataxis, which implies the
condensation of two sentences into one complex sentence. The genesis of the Indo-
European correlative diptych mentioned on p. 103 is a case in point. Further

grammaticalization in this channel involves nominalization: a subordinative conjunction
such as Engl. that forms a nominalized clause; but a nominalizing suffix such as -ing
merely forms nominal VPs or verb forms (ch. 3.1.6).
Some grammatical morphemes are birelational. Then we may consider their structural
scope in both directions, as it were. The personal pronoun mentioned before is not only
governed by the verb; it also contracts an anaphoric relation to an NP. As long as it is a
free personal pronoun, the latter is a semantic relation at a level above the clause. Then
the NP gradually intrudes into the clause, via a left- or right-dislocation. Finally, when
the personal pronoun has become an agreement affix, the referent NP may occupy the
object position so that this relation has got down to the VP level and become a syntactic
one. We may speculate that incorporation of the object further reduces this level.
It is now evident that we determine the grammatical level of the construction which a
sign helps to form by the syntagmatic morphosyntactic relation(s) which it contracts. No
use has been made here of semantic relations, of any notion of a sign being valid for
or concerning a construction of a certain level. This must be stressed because fallacies
of the following kind suggest themselves: Aspect may be grammaticalized to tense, and
modality (as expressed, e.g. by modal verbs) may be grammaticalized to mood. Now
aspect and modality are categories concerning the VP, while tense and mood are valid
for the clause as a whole. (Let us grant this for the sake of argument and following
Bazell 1949:7.) Therefore in these cases grammaticalization is accompanied by an
increase in the scope of a grammatical morpheme. Similar fallacies might be founded
upon Traugott's (1980:47) notion that
grammatical markers shift over time from primarily referential meanings to
less referential, more pragmatic, meanings
or, more detailed (p. 54):
Propositional meanings of grammatical markers may give rise to textual ones
and textual meanings may give rise to interpersonal ones, but not vice versa.
To infer an increase in the structural level and thus in the scope of the grammatical
marker would be fallacious, because these markers bear no grammatical relation to
constituents at the higher levels mentioned; in particular, tense and mood bear no direct
morphosyntactic relation to the clause as a whole. Their being valid for the clause is a
matter of semantics.
In certain cases, there is an obvious divergence between structural and semantic scope of
a grammatical operator. The meaning of the English modal verb may has developed from
physical via deontic to epistemic possibility. This implies a widening of the semantic
scope from the verbal action to the proposition. Similar developments are frequent in the
case of tense, aspect and mood operators. This is a clear example that arbitrariness,
absence of iconicity, accompanies increasing grammaticalization (cf. ch. 4.2.1).
Morphological structure is often not amenable to direct semantic interpretation. Possibly
reduction of scope is the one factor which is most responsible for non-iconicity and
arbitrariness in grammatical structure.
Also, the shrinking of structural scope in the course of grammaticalization ends at the
stem level. The diverse structural scope of the affixes of one word does not reflect their
grammaticality; i.e. it is not generally the case that inner affixes are more grammatical
than outer affixes. Instead, inner affixes are generally derivational, while outer affixes
are inflectional. Even among the inflectional affixes, no order according to grammaticali-
ty is observed. The reason lies in the mechanism of agglutination (see next section). If
only morphemes (e.g. postpositions or person pronouns) agglutinated to hosts, then outer
morphological layers would generally be more recent and therefore less grammatical,
and shrinkage of scope would be regular. However, a whole inflected word form may
agglutinate to a host, e.g. an auxiliary verb to a non-finite full verb. Then suddenly an
inflectional affix may find itself wedged in between less grammatical morphemes. The
result is some form of inner inflection, as in German compound adjectives like hochwer-
tig (high-value-ADJVR) top-grade, comparative hherwertig (beside hochwertiger). The
mechanism of agglutination of inflected forms also yields highly non-iconic sequential
morphological structure. A notable example is the prefix sequence subject agreement
tense/aspect object agreement verb stem common in Bantu languages, which
obviously results from the coalescence of a syntagm inflected auxiliary full verb.
The possibility of coming up with a formal account of such structures and of the degree
of systematicity of scope shrinking depends on a polycentric analysis of morphological
structure which I will not try to vindicate here.
Condensation thus has to be taken with these provisos. The question nevertheless
remains what the functional correlate of the phenomenon of structural scope is. P.
Kiparsky (1968) has introduced the notion of predicativity for the semantic aspect of
structural scope. A sign is predicative if it can be used to predicate something on
something else. Kiparsky's examples are temporal adverbs, which are predicative, and
verbal tense morphemes, which are not; and his claim is that tense morphemes in the
Indo-European languages have evolved from more predicative elements of Pro-
to-Indo-European. We have seen in ch. 3.1.6 that temporal adverb > tense is in fact a
historically attested grammaticalization channel. The notion of predicativity has been
taken up more recently by H. Seiler (1982) and been explicitly connected with that of
semanticity. The idea is that the more semanticity an item displays, the more predicative
force it has. Seiler's examples are techniques of nominal classification and individuation,
such as numeral classification and noun class/gender, the former being more predicative
than the latter. As we have seen in ch. 3.2.1.3, the choice of the numeral classifier may
indeed constitute a subordinate predication of itself, while noun class and gender are
much less subject to discretionary choice and therefore contribute much more to
assigning an item to a class than to predicating on it. Cf. also the observations in
ch. 4.2.3 on the syntagmatic compatibility of a gender with an apparently contradictory
sex: it is always the sex that wins out.
In a related sense, the term rhematicity has been used by K. Strunk (1980) for a
property which items lose in the course of their grammaticalization. Discussing the
grammaticalization of reflexivity in much the way I did in ch. 3.2.1.3 above, Strunk finds
that reflexive pronouns tend to be renovated or reinforced when they lose their
rhematicity. If a reflexive pronoun is to emphasize the identity of the object with the
subject, it must be able to carry the rheme of a sentence. If it is not rhematic in this sense,
it will merely signify that the action abides in the sphere of the subject. For example,
there comes a point in the development of Lat. se levare where it can no longer be used
to signify to lift oneself, but merely means to get up. Then the reflexive will be
reinforced, so that we get sese levare or Span. levarse a si mismo. Rhematicity in this
sense can obviously be regarded as a semantic or even communicative counterpart of the
structural scope of an item: while a rhematic reflexive pronoun may form a VP with the
governing verb, a non-rhematic reflexive helps to form an intransitive verb.
There are also possible connections between the parameter of structural scope and the
explicitness vs. ellipticity of a construction. These are discussed in Jakobson & Waugh
1979:6f as two extreme aspects of linguistic operations, a view which the authors
ascribe to Franciscus Sanctius Brocensis (16. cent). One may indeed consider that the
periphrastic habeo cantatum I have sung is more explicit than the synthetic cantavi. It
seems, however, recommendable to restrict the terms explicit vs. elliptic to a scale of
proceeding syntagmatic abbreviation by omission of constituents in context; this appears
also to be intended by Jakobson and Waugh. The reduction of structural scope is much
more a condensation of a construction by a degradation to a lower level of constituent
structure. The successive loss of specifications here is not a kind of contextual ellipticity,
but a constitutional categorial restriction. Nevertheless, the difference is by no means
clear-cut, and we will have to take up later the question of whether grammaticalization
can be compensated for by explicitness.
At the end of this section, the question of the boundedness or open-endedness of
grammaticalization scales poses itself with enhanced clarity. On the one hand, we have
seen two clauses being condensed into one, and we are thus led to ask whether
grammaticalization has any role to play above the sentence level. On the other hand, we
have seen grammatical formatives being reduced to phonological alternations of
morphemes (e.g. in apophony [ablaut]), and we are thus led to ask whether gram-
maticalization has any role to play below the morpheme level. These questions will be
taken up in later chapters.
4.3.2. Bondedness
The syntagmatic cohesion or bondedness of a sign is the intimacy with which it is
connected with another sign to which it bears a syntagmatic relation. The degree of
bondedness of a sign varies from juxtaposition to merger, in proportion to its degree of
grammaticality. The term bondedness appears to have first been used by W. Foley
(1980) in order to describe the connection between head nouns and their adjuncts, his
idea being, basically, that when an adjunct is reduced from a freely formed modifier to
a mere grammatical determiner, its bondedness to the head noun increases. Foley posits
a scale of bondedness and supports it empirically by the incidence of connecting particles
in adnominal modification of Austronesian languages, which is greater in the more
weakly bonded constructions. The German equivalent of bondedness, viz. Fgungsen-
ge, had been used by H. Seiler (1975) to describe the degree of integration of a nominal
term formed to name an object. Fgungsenge is loosest in descriptive terms, especially
in transparent compounds, and most intimate in labelling terms, i.e. arbitrary
monomorphemic nouns. We will return to this conception in our discussion of lexicaliza-
tion (ch. 5.2).
Any increase in bondedness will be called coalescence. As this process can be observed
fairly accurately at the level of phonology, a variety of terms have appeared in the
literature to designate its phases. The first step away from juxtaposition is the
subordination of the grammaticalized item under an adjacent accent, called cliticization.
The next phase, in which it becomes an affix of another element, is agglutination; and
the last phase, in which the grammaticalized item loses its morpheme identity, becoming
an integral part of another morpheme, is fusion or merger. Some of these terms have also
been used for the whole of the coalescence process. I will first treat coalescence as a
process affecting the significans and later take up the question of its semantic
counterpart.
Some examples of different degrees of bondedness or of coalescence may be reviewed
before we go into greater theoretical detail. The Latin demonstrative ille is, as a
determiner, juxtaposed to the nominal it determines. It yields the French definite article,
which is proclitic, and the Romanian definite article, which is suffixal. As a pronoun, ille
yields the oblique forms le, la etc. of several Romance languages, which are clitic to the
verb and sometimes even treated as suffixes. The German preposition trotz despite is
juxtaposed to the NP which it governs. More grammaticalized prepositions, e.g. zu to
and an at, tend to lose their accent and become proclitic. The result are characteristic
fusional forms in combination with the definite article, as illustrated in E57 in ch.
3.4.1.3. Case suffixes may be agglutinative, as they are in Turkish (e.g. y2l-2n
year-GEN), or fusional, as they are in Latin (e.g. anni year:GEN). In the former case,
the affix is separable from the stem, which can exist without the affix (e.g. y2l year); in
the latter case, stem and affix are inseparable, i.e. the stem necessarily appears in one of
the forms defined by one of the affixes (e.g. annus year:NOM). The greatest degree of
fusion is reached in what has been traditionally called symbolism of the apophony
(ablaut) and metaphony (umlaut) type, e.g. Engl. sing vs. sang (PAST) or foot vs. feet
(PL).
One might consider that the elementary necessary precondition for coalescence is that the
grammaticalized item has some grammatical relation to the element with which it is to
coalesce. There is some truth in this. Collocations which come about only occasionally
cannot coalesce; they are not amenable to grammaticalization at all. The Baltic
languages, for instance, have a definiteness suffix on adjectives. The condition for the
coalescence of a definiteness marker with an adjective is, evidently, that the expression
of definiteness of an NP is bound to the presence of an adjective attribute, positioned
immediately in front of the definiteness marker. In German and English, the collocation
of the definite article with an adjective attribute is occasional, since it makes no
difference for definite determination whether an adjective attribute is present or not.
Here there is no basis for such a coalescence.
On the other hand, we know of cases of cliticization where there is no grammatical
relation between the clitic element and its carrier. Cf. the Latin coordinator -que, which
is appended to the first word of the second conjunct (as in cum in ramo sedebat caseum-
que devorare in animo habebat while it sat on a branch and had in mind to devour the
cheese). In Somali, subject personal pronouns are enclitic to the focus marker, even
though both have nothing to do with each other (E100). In Coahuilteco (see Troike
1981), cross-referencing personal pronouns which function as subject agreement markers
are attached to an oblique NP, mostly the object NP, which precedes the verb. In Yucatec
Maya, subject pronouns precede the verb, and possessive pronouns precede the
possessed noun; but both are enclitic to whatever happens to precede them. A multitude
of such examples could be cited. We may learn from them that coalescence proceeds
according to either of two potentially conflicting principles. One possibility is that the
position of a grammaticalized item in a syntagm is defined by grammatical relations.
Then it will be appended to such elements to which it bears a grammatical relation. Or its
position in a syntagm is defined by sequential order relations, typically involving the
number of constituents from a certain syntactic boundary on, and more typically the
position after the first constituent of a clause. Then cliticization will not (necessarily)
reflect grammatical relations. In the former case, coalescence will proceed along the
trodden paths of grammaticalization, while in the latter case it will normally stop with
cliticization. One might consider restricting the terms clitic and cliticization to the
latter case, so that cliticization would not be an essential feature of grammaticalization.
This would have an added advantage. If cliticization is the loss of accent and subordina-
tion under an adjacent one, and if all grammaticalization necessarily involved cliticiza-
tion, it would be difficult to account for the existence of stressed inflectional affixes.
Such affixes are rare, but do occur, especially in the archaic Indo-European languages.
In Greek, for instance, the -t- suffix forming a passive participle is stressed. (These
cases must not, of course, be confused with those where an affix receives stress
according to phonological rules of word accent.) It therefore appears advisable to regard
cliticization as a typical, but not necessary ingredient of grammaticalization.
Before any phonological consequences of coalescence make themselves felt, there are
syntactic symptoms to be observed. One of them is the inseparability of a grammatical
formative under coordination reduction. That is, if the cohesion of the formative X
with constituent A increases, A-X and B-X can no longer be ruduced to [A and B]-X,
and similarly, A-X and A-Y can no longer be reduced to A-[X and Y] (cf. Mallinson
& Blake 1981:198-201). E105 - E107 demonstrate impossibility of coordination
reduction in the b-constructions and its possibility in their English a-counterparts.
E105. a. to describe and explain

GERM b. zu beschreiben und zu erklren
E106. a. to the author or the editor
FREN b. l'auteur ou au sige
E107. a. Sumie goes to and from Osaka.
JAP b. Sumie wa Oosaka ni to Oosaka kara iku.
Sumie TOP Osaka DIR and Osaka ABL go
(cf. Mallinson & Blake 1981:201)
Examples E105 und E106 show that the bondedness of both German zu and French is
greater than that of Engl. to, since they cannot be suppressed in coordination. E107
shows that the Japanese particles, often alleged to be postpositions, are, at any rate, more
intimately bonded to their complements than are English prepositions, since they cannot
be coordinated: *Oosaka ni to kara is impossible. Incidentally, the two parts of the
coordination criterion need not yield the same result. Thus, in Japanese it is perfectly
possible to attach one case particle to two coordinated NPs, as in Oosaka to Tookyoo ni
to Osaka and Tokyo, and the same is true of Turkish case suffixes.51 One might
speculate that the two halves of the coordination reduction criterion are related by an
implication of the following kind: A-[X and Y] 6 [A and B]-X. That is, in coalescence,
first the coordination of grammatical markers (belonging to the same paradigm) related
to one constituent becomes impossible, then the combination of only one grammatical
marker with a coordination of constituents becomes impossible. The latter is, of course,
at the same time an instance of the reduction of the structural scope of a grammatical
formative.
Another syntactic criterion to test the bondedness of a grammatical formative is the
possibility of inserting material between it and the word it tends to attach to. Cf. Zwicky
1978 on decreasing insertability of material in lower level constituents. The test is
generally effectuated by expanding the host constituent. Its application to Engl. to +
infinitive vs. Germ. zu + infinitive is exemplified in E108.
E108. a. to fully describe
GERM b. vollstndig zu beschreiben
Here the expansion criterion converges with the coordination criterion in the result that
bondedness in Engl. to + infinitive is looser than in Germ. zu + infinitive. Putting it more
generally, the expansion test makes us see whether a grammatical formative is already so
much grammaticalized as to be combinable only with a particular word form class, or
whether it still attaches to a class of potentially expanded constituents.
51
This is, in fact, one of the differences between agglutinative case suffixes and flexional ones of
the ancient Indo-European type which first struck the eye of early typologists.
Univerbation is the traditional term for the welding of a syntagm into one word.
Examples: German keines Wegs (lit. of no way) > keineswegs by no means,
Proto-Greek @ "J (he:DAT.SG.M self:DAT.SG.M) > Attic "LJ to himself (cf.
Wackernagel 1924, II:82). The orthography is, of course, not always realiable. French
bon march cheap behaves grammatically like one word, since it cannot be opposed to
mauvais march (but rather to cher expensive).52
If univerbation is to be considered within the scope of grammaticalization, the last
example clearly shows that it does occur outside this domain, too. In fact, univerbation
has traditionally been opposed to composition, this pair of terms being sometimes
rendered in German by Zusammenrckung vs. Zusammensetzung, respectively (cf.
irmunskij 1966:88). The difference between these two processes need not be clear-cut
in every instance, but in principle it is this: Univerbation is restricted to the syntagmatic
axis and may affect, in perhaps idiosyncratic ways, any two particular word forms which
happen to be habitually used in collocation. Composition, as a schema of word-for-
mation, presupposes a paradigm in analogy to which it proceeds and affects a class of
stems according to a structural pattern. This characterization allows for the possibility
that univerbation is an instance of coalescence as a constitutive process of
grammaticalization, namely whenever at least one of the univerbated word forms is a
grammatical formative, as in Greek "LJ.
One might, in fact, ask whether there is any difference in principle between univerbation
and agglutination. The two are brought into close connection by F. de Saussure (1916,
part 3, ch. VII, 1f), who opposes agglutination to analogy as two driving forces of
grammatical change, the former leading to univerbation, the latter to word formation
(composition and derivation). We will return in ch. 5.4 to the relation of grammaticaliza-
tion to analogy and here remark only that univerbation should be kept distinct from
agglutination for two reasons. The first lies in the potentially fortuitous, selective nature
of univerbation. A univerbation such as keineswegs is possible everywhere and at any
time, regardless of the existence or not of such models as keinesfalls in no case or
*jedenwegs. Agglutination of a postposition as a case suffix to a noun, however,
typically does not affect just one postposition, but a whole paradigm. Agglutination is
not an occasional, but a systematic process.
The second reason for distinguishing agglutination and univerbation relates to a
difference in scope: agglutination is not restricted to the word level, at least not in the
same sense as univerbation. If a grammatical formative is univerbated with another
word, it attaches to the latter as such and not as a representative of a possibly complex
syntactic category. But precisely this typically happens in agglutination. The difference
between an agglutinative and a fusional affix lies not only (as has sometimes been
alleged, e.g. in Sapir 1921, ch. V and Greenberg 1954) in the lesser degree of
phonological adaptation exhibited or caused by the former. This is only the superficial
52
See Frei 1929:109f, who calls the phenomenon brachysemy.
consequence of the fact that the morphological bond between an agglutinative affix and
its carrier is looser than that between a fusional affix and its carrier. Cf. the following ex-
amples from Altaic languages (irmunskij 1966:71):
E109. ota, ona va dust-lar-dan salom
UZB father mother and friend-PL-ABL greeting
greetings from father(s), mother(s) and friends

E110. yar2n gel-ir, al-2r-2m
TURK tomorrow come-PRS take-PRS-1.SG
tomorrow I shall come and take
E111. ne y-iyor, ne i-iyor, ne de syl-yor-du
TURK neither eat-PROG nor drink-PROG nor also speak-PROG-PAST(3.SG)
he did not eat, nor drink, nor speak

If we confined ourselves to comparing only Latin amicis (from) the friends, capiam I
will take and loquebatur he spoke with the relevant forms in the above examples, we
might indeed be led to reducing the phenomenon to a phonological difference. What we
have to compare, however, are the syntagms E109'-E111'.
E109.' a patre, matre et amicis salutationes
LATIN
E110.' cras veniam atque capiam
LATIN
E111.' non edebat, non bibebat, non loquebatur
LATIN
The coordination test shows that the grammatical formatives ABL, 1.SG and PAST have
to be repeated in Latin, because they are strictly bound to the word, whereas they may be
combined with complex constituents in Uzbek und Turkish.
In a situation such as the latter one, it is, of course, essential to have independent criteria
that one is, in fact, dealing with affixes. The criterion of structural scope, which one
would be tempted to invoke here, has just been discarded, and we are left with
morphological and phonological criteria. The morphological criterion concerns the fact
that an affix in contradistinction to a free morpheme occupies a particular slot on
a particular word class. This is the criterion of syntagmatic variability which we will turn
to in the following section. The phonological criterion concerns the application of
phonological rules to sequences which include the potential affix, such rules being
otherwise known to apply to words. Turkish vowel harmony is an example; its
application includes suffixes, but not postpositions. Accordingly we have vapur ile with
a steamer, but vapur-la by steamer (cf. p. 74). Furthermore, rules of sandhi and other
assimilation rules operate in most languages to adapt an affix to a stem.
The more an affix is integrated into the word by such rules, the more agglutination gives
way to fusion. In classical morphological typology, a crucial feature distinguishing a
language of the flexional ( fusional) type such as Sanskrit from a language of the
agglutinative type such as Turkish was, in fact, the richness of sandhi rules to be found
in the former; cf. Humboldt's (1836:506-511) detailed discussion of Sanskrit sandhi. The
common function of phonological rules setting in at the moment of agglutination and
giving way to fusion might be designated, with Heine & Reh (1984:17-20), by the term
adaptation.
Coalescence may be described as the weakening and final loss of boundaries. Hyman
(1978, esp. 4) has set up a scale of boundaries rendered here in F10.
F10. Scale of grammatical boundaries

5 > ## > # > + >
This is to be read: clause boundary includes word boundary includes stem boundary
includes morpheme boundary includes absence of boundary. The transitive inclusion
relation from left to right means that if a phonological process applies across a given
boundary, it also applies across the boundaries to its right; and when a boundary is
weakened in coalescence, what is left is its neighbor on the right. Hyman argues that no
phonological rule refers to the + boundary. Therefore loss of the # boundary would
mean complete integration of a morpheme into a word. These ideas had been prepared by
Kuryowicz (1948:211), who showed that the rules of syllabication, which in several
languages such as German do not cross the word (or stem) boundary, nevertheless seize
whatever comes to be agglutinated as an affix.
Fusion of grammatical formatives with stems leads to a variety of phenomena
characteristic of the morphological structure of so-called flexional languages. One of
them is the amalgamation or cumulation of several grammatical categories in one
morpheme. In a Latin adjective form such as bon (good:DAT.SG.M/N) it is not only
difficult to localize a morpheme boundary, since the inflectional morpheme consists of
a lengthening of the final vowel of the stem bono-; what is more, none of the three
inflectional categories of case, number and gender has a separate morpheme, or mor-
phological slot, for its expression; instead, they are cumulated in a case-number-gender
morpheme. It is common for cumulation to affect affixal morphemes; but sometimes
several grammatical categories may be agglomerated in a free morpheme. Cf. French au
to the < le; more examples of portemanteau morphs in Jeffers & Zwicky 1980, 6.
Amalgamation naturally leads to lack of distinctness of inflectional morphemes. Polyse-
mies or homonymies of endings are often only dispelled in agreement, as is familiar from
Latin grammar. In German, this has been developed from a deficiency to a method, as
has been shown by O. Werner (1979). Instead of expressing a bundle of inflectional
categories on each of a set of agreeing constituents, we distribute its expression among
these constituents, so that the exhaustive specification of these categories is afforded by

none of the constituents in isolation, but only by the set taken together. A simple
example is kleiner Kinder of small children. Kleiner may be nom.sg.m. or gen.pl.,
whereas Kinder may be nom. or gen.pl. Taking both together, we get gen.pl., and the
phrase can accordingly be used as a genitive complement, for instance to a verb such as
gedenken commemorate. At the same time we forfeit the possibility of representing
such constituents by only one word as a carrier of the bundle of categories; Kinder alone,
though potentially genitive plural, cannot constitute a genitive complement (it would
have to be der Kinder, einiger Kinder or von Kindern). On the basis of such evidence,
Werner is lead to postulate a new morphological type, the discontinuing type.
Another phenomenon of extreme fusion is what has traditionally been termed (by Hum-
boldt and Sapir, among others) symbolism or symbolic expression. This means that a
grammatical category does not have a morpheme or segment reserved for its expression,
but that it is embodied in the formal relation between two alternative forms of a stem.
The examples of (qualitative) apophony (sing PRS vs. sang PAST) and metaphony (tooth
SG vs. teeth PL) have already been mentioned. Other processes of symbolic expression
include vowel lengthening (quantitative apophony), consonant mutation, accent shift and
tone change. Vowel lengthening occurs in the Sanskrit guna ? and vr?ddhi stem forms;
consonant mutation in the grading of Finnish verb stems. For accent shift cf. Russ. kna,
nom.pl. of window, with okn, gen.sg. Tone change occurs in Yucatec Maya deagenti-
ve verbs, e.g. kach break (tr.) vs. kach break (intr.). These symbolic means may or
may not be direct diachronic continuations of segmental formatives. Germanic umlaut is
an indirect reflex, since it does not continue a former plural morpheme, but was triggered
by one.
It is no great exaggeration if we say that the core of classical agglutination theory, with
its stages of isolation, agglutination and fusion (=flexion), is embodied in the one
grammaticalization parameter of bondedness or the corresponding process of
coalescence. Relatively little thought has been devoted to the question of whether these
rather easily discernible formal processes have anything corresponding to them on the
semantic side.53 Is there any such thing as semantic coalescence or unification,
(irmunskij 1966, 3); can we claim, as Bybee (1981, 3) does, that morphophonemic
fusion diagrams semantic fusion?
This issue must be kept distinct from the unification of lexical meanings. Complex
lexical meanings which have been formed by rules of word formation may subsequently
be reduced to simple meanings, as when Pre-Latin sim-plec-s once folded becomes
French simple. Here fusion of the significans does reflect fusion of the significatum, but
no grammaticalization is involved. This sort of process will be taken up in the chapter on
lexicalization.
53
One exception is Humboldt (1836:488-500), who has an intensive discussion of the essential
differences between the three types.
What we find in semantic bondedness is not so much the fusion of a grammatical with a
lexical meaning; even in Engl. feet the plural component is clearly distinct from the
foot component. Instead, we find an increase in the dependency of the grammatical
meaning on the lexical meanings which it is attached to. The traditional notion of
autosemantic vs. synsemantic (or, alternatively, of (auto-)categorematic vs.
syncategorematic) signs provides a suitable approach to this problem; cf. also Hjelmslev
1928:230 on his notions of semanteme vs. morpheme. Any full lexical noun can
signify by itself a certain concept and can independently refer to a certain class of
objects. But when it is grammaticalized to a noun of multitude to express collectivity, or
to a numeral classifier to help individuate units in counting, it loses this ability and
signifies a concept only in combination with another word. Similarly, any lexical verb
can signify a certain kind of state, process or action or refer to individual instances of
them. But when it is grammaticalized to a coverb or auxiliary, it forfeits this ability and
needs another verb to help signify such things. This semantic dependency becomes even
more pronounced with further grammaticalization. A number or gender marker does not
signify a number or gender concept as such, but only insofar as these are features of
other concepts. Similarly, a case or tense marker does not express an isolatable actant
role or time concept, but only insofar as these are relations or categories of nominal or
verbal concepts. This is, in fact, one of the semantic differences between the word
plurality and the plural -s, or the word past and the suffix -ed.
The semantic dependency of synsemantic signs is particularly clear from the fact that
they not only must be obligatorily combined with autosemantic signs, but they also can
only be combined with specific classes of the latter. In English, grammatical plural is
afforded a place in the classes of nouns and pronouns; it cannot be combined with
adjectives, verbs (except to be) or any other lexical class.
When grammatical formatives become bound morphemes, they become morphologically
dependent, subordinate to a lexeme. Some of them may have started by being
syntactically subordinate to the word to which they are later affixed. A free personal
pronoun occupying the object position of a transitive verb is governed by the latter. If it
is grammaticalized to an agreement affix, its syntactic dependency is transformed into a
morphological one; but the direction of dependency itself remains unchanged. This is not
so in a major portion of the grammaticalization processes. Often the term which is
subsequently grammaticalized starts as the head of the syntagm, either the governing or
the modified term. Nouns of multitude in Bengali started as heads of possessive
attributes, the latter becoming subsequently the lexical heads to which the former
attached as plural suffixes (see Klver 1982[I], 2.1). The adverbial suffixes Engl. -ly,
Romance -ment(e) come from nouns to which the adjective was an attribute. Auxiliaries
always start as syntactic main verbs, governing a lexical verb in a nominalized form.
When they are attached to the latter as tense or aspect affixes, the lexical verb must have
become the main verb (s. p. 30f). The Japanese particle no, both in its attributive and in
its nominalizing function, originally was the head of a possessive attribute. Dependent
clauses derive diachronically from possessive attributes to their subordinating con-

junctions also in other languages, such as Accadic.
One conclusion immediately suggested by this state of affairs is that morphological
analysis can be made more precise. Morphological relations could be seen as
grammaticalizations of different syntactic relations. There would no longer be an
unanalyzable relation between a stem of class x and an affix of slot y, but instead we
might distinguish various relations of morphological modification and morphological
government from x to y or vice versa. I suspect a promising line of research here, but
will not pursue the matter further.
A second consequence that one must draw is that in the course of such grammaticaliza-
tion processes, there must be a point of shift, of syntactic reanalysis. Consider the
problem of case affixes. Firstly, there is no doubt that an adposition can govern a
complement NP and that the complex phrase thus constituted is assigned a constituent
category according to its head, i.e. it is an adpositional phrase. Secondly, there is no
doubt that an NP may have an unmarked syntactic function, e.g. that of the direct object,
that it may then have no case and thus simply be an NP. Thirdly, there is no doubt that an
adposition may gradually evolve into a case affix and this may end up as zero, e.g. in the
accusative. What constitutes a matter of doubt is the question of what the syntactic
category of an NP with a case is. Should we locate it on this side of the turning point and
say it is like an adpositional phrase; or should we locate it beyond the turning point,
saying it is an NP? Or will we need a separate category for cased NPs? The latter
solution appears particularly undesirable because then we could not forestall the danger
of having to provide distinct syntactic categories for NPs with cases of different degrees
of grammaticality, e.g. one NP in a grammatical case and another NP in a concrete
case, and so forth. Incidentally, I see here the crux of the whole enterprise of case
grammar. In the field of constituent structure, we are particularly loath to accept gradual
transitions. And yet, to all appearances, there is a gradual difference between an
adpositional phrase and a noun phrase. Constituent structure, one of the last bastions of
static structuralism, cannot be seen as formed by means of a series of binary decisions,
but is the product of a set of operations which may inflate relations at some points and
shrink them at other points. This is why we find different degrees of bondedness in
grammatical structure.
4.3.3. Syntagmatic variability

The syntagmatic variability of a sign is the ease with which it can be shifted around in its
context. In the case of a grammaticalized sign, this concerns mainly its positional
mutability with respect to those constituents with which it enters into construction.
Syntagmatic variability decreases with increasing grammaticalization.
The grammaticalization of adverbs to adpositions provides an example. An adverb which
specifies an aspect of a local NP may often be juxtaposed to it on either side and
sometimes even be separated from it (cf. p. 79). The more intimate its connection with
the NP becomes, the more its position vis--vis the latter becomes fixed; it develops
either into a preposition or into a postposition. At this point, it still enjoys a minimum of
syntagmatic variability; it may, for instance, be coordinated with other adpositions. This
last rest is lost when it becomes a case affix, which has to occupy a particular slot in a
nominal affix series.
As authors have observed repeatedly (e.g. Matthews 1981:256), the famous freedom of
word order in Latin is subject to an exception: prepositions must normally precede their
complements and got their name from this very fact. This exception turns out to be quite
regular in the framework of grammaticalization theory, since prepositions are along
with conjunctions, for which similar restrictions obtain the most strongly
grammaticalized free morphemes of Latin. It is therefore to be expected that their
syntagmatic variability is not much greater than that of bound morphemes.
Again, before a verb becomes an auxiliary, it may enjoy a certain positional freedom
vis--vis the VP with which it combines. In Classical Latin, the parts of the construction
epistulam scriptam habeo I have a letter written could occur in any order. In Vulgar
Latin, most of these options were doubtless lost, and we end up with Italian ho scritto
una lettera I have written a letter, in which the sequence of auxiliary and full verb is
invariable. The same can be observed when a personal pronoun develops into an
agreement affix, or a demonstrative pronoun into a definite article. See Givn 1975:84f
for loss of syntagmatic variability in serial verbs on their way to adpositions.
When a grammatical formative bears relations to two constituents, syntagmatic
variability with respect to either of them may decrease at an uneven pace. Thus, when in
a construction verb adverbial relator NP, the bond between the adverbial relator
and the NP is intensified, syntagmatic variability decreases here much more rapidly than
in the relation between the verb and the adverbial NP. Only when the latter is
grammaticalized to a governed NP, to a complement of the verb, its position vis--vis the
verb tends to become fixed. Similarly, when a personal pronoun develops into an
agreement affix, its syntagmatic variability decreases rapidly (cf. p. 36). At the same
time, the NP to which it bears an anaphoric relation enters into a government relationship
with the carrier of the agreement affix (most commonly the verb) and forfeits its own
syntagmatic mobility, though much more slowly.
A phenomenon sometimes observed in grammaticalization is that the order in which the
grammaticalized item is fixed in its construction differs from that order which was most
natural when it was still a lexeme. This is, for instance, the situation in the development
of the Romance auxiliary have just mentioned. The unmarked sequence in Latin was
either epistulam scriptam habeo, with the verb in final position, or habeo epistulam
scriptam, with the verb in front of the object. Neither of these variations survived in
Italian ho scritto una lettera. Similarly, Mallinson & Blake (1981:423f) call attention to
the fact that the formation of causative constructions with fare in Italian (and equally
with faire in French) does not display that order which one would expect if general rules
of syntax obtained. We find constructions such as those in E112 (cf. Comrie 1981[L]:162).
E112. a. Faccio scrivere Maria la lettera. I have Mary write the letter.
ITAL b. Gliela faccio scrivere. I have her write it.
Since Mary and the letter are subject and object of the writing, respectively, one might
expect faccio Maria scrivere la lettera and faccio scrivergliela; but instead, faccio and
scrivere go together, the subject of the subordinate verb being demoted (cf. Comrie
1981, ch. 8.2). In German and similar languages, participles may grammaticalize to
adpositions. While a participle, as a non-finite verb, governs its dependents to the left
(e.g. deinen Vorschlgen entsprechend according to your suggestions), the result of the
grammaticalization is not a postpostion, but a preposition (entsprechend deinen
Vorschlgen). Finally, Heine & Reh (1984:132) show that while the unmarked position
of time adverbs in Bari (Eastern Nilotic) is sentence-initial, that adverb which becomes
a future marker shifts to a position between subject and verb, i.e. the position reserved
for tense markers in Bari. Cf. also p. 32 above.
On the basis of such evidence, Heine and Reh suggest including permutation as one of
the formal processes making up grammaticalization. It appears that one should rather
conceive of such phenomena as positional adjustment than as permutation. Two
principles seem to be involved here. First, while the syntagmatic variability of the
grammaticalized item decreases, its bond with a particular class of words which it comes
to modify grammatically becomes tighter. That is, whenever such positional adjustments
occur, they will produce an order in which the grammaticalized item is adjacent to its
lexical support. In this respect, positional adjustment is a consequence of coalescence.
Second, as will be discussed in more detail below, the canalization of grammaticalization
processes is due, to a great extent, to the existence of models which exert an analogical
strain. The Bari example shows this very clearly. In the Italian causative construction, the
governing grammatical verb is put in front of the governed full verb according to the
model of the periphrastic verb forms. The latter in their turn, exemplified by ho scritto,
did not have a very strong model to follow. This may be inferred from the fact that
besides ho scritto, we get scriver < scribere habeo. The latter construction conforms
rather to an older general syntactic pattern governed - governing, which persisted most
strongly in subordinate clauses, while the construction ho scritto conforms to a more
recent pattern governing - governed. Summarizing this consideration, we may say that
there is no positional adjustment beyond the combined effects of coalescence and
analogy.
In the beginning we appeared to dispose of a restricted concept of syntagmatic variability
which concerned only the relation between a grammaticalized item and the constituent
with which it forms a construction. But the complex constituent thus formed may
contract a further grammatical relation to another constituent which may be mediated by
the grammatical marker; recall the situation with case affixes and personal agreement
affixes. The freedom of the order of such constituents is therefore also comprised under
the concept of syntagmatic variability. Now consider that grammaticalization may reduce
a grammatical marker to zero: we can still ask what happens to the syntagmatic
variability of the constituents that had been related by this marker. In this way, the whole
issue of word order and word order freedom emerges as one of the parameters of
grammaticalization. The problem can obviously be tackled only in connection with the
other grammaticalization parameters, and I will therefore return to it in the next chapter,
which deals with their correlation.
4.4. Interaction of parameters
4.4.1. Quantifiability of the parameters

Before there can be a significant discussion of the correlation among the grammaticali-
zation parameters, it is indispensable that they can assume measurable values
independently of each other. Knowing in advance that we will not be able to stand up to
the requirements of linguistic theory and method in this respect, we will at least make an
effort at as much precision as possible. At least one condition for the quantifiability of
the parameters is fulfilled: they are purely formal, i.e. they are indifferent as to the
specific meanings or functions involved in the various grammaticalization channels.
The integrity of a sign is its meaning specificity and phonological size. I will assume
these two aspects to correlate with each other; any lack of correspondence between them
would not be a problem of grammaticalization theory. As was already said, the semantic
specificity of a sign can be measured in terms of the number of propositions (as formal
representations of semantic features) which are conjoined (rather than disjoined) in its
semantic representation. A precise proposal has been made, and its applicability in
principle has been demonstrated, in Lehmann 1978. To give a superficial idea of the
magnitudes involved here, current semantic descriptions lead one to speculate that from
five to twenty (rarely more) conjoined propositions are needed for the semantic
representation of a lexical meaning, while the meaning (or function) of a grammatical
formative may be specified with fewer, or by a disjunction of propositions. Concerning
the size of the significans, we are on safer ground. Lexical items may be made up of an
arbitrary length of segments; lexical morphemes may certainly contain more than three
syllables (e.g. inveterate). In some languages such as Indonesian and Classical Arabic,
there are comparatively few lexemes comprising less than two syllables; and in all
languages the number of lexemes expressed only by one segment is very low, compared
to the number of grammatical formatives so expressed (cf. Lehmann 1974:115f). The
latter very seldom comprise more than two syllables, very often no more than one or two
segments, and occasionally even less than that, namely merely a feature on another
morpheme. The latter case is impossible for the lexical morphemes of any language (cf.
Moravcsik 1980). The mere counting of units could be refined if they were weighed
differently according to their implicative potential; but such speculations are idle at the
present low level of general sophistication. In any case, it is clear that this parameter may
assume values from an arbitrary (but usually not too high) number down to zero.
Paradigmaticity has one aspect which is easily quantifiable, namely the sheer size of the
paradigm in terms of number of members. The size of the Sanskrit case paradigm is
eight, that of the English articles two. In general, paradigms may have from a dozen or
(rarely) more members down to one member; lexical fields may, of course, have more.
Unfortunately, this magnitude does not necessarily correlate with the cohesion of the
paradigm as determined by its formal and functional homogeneity; a large paradigm may
be homogeneous, and a small one may be heterogeneous. The homogeneity of a
paradigm might be measured as the ratio of those features in which its members differ to
those which they have in common. However, at present I have no idea whether in
principle this would be feasible.
Paradigmatic variability is very difficult to quantify, since it must be made dependent on
a number of contextual factors which differ from one paradigm to another. Abstracting
away from such differences, paradigmatic variability boils down to the proportion of
members of a paradigm which are mutually substitutable in a given context. Zero would
have to be somehow included as a member of any paradigm. The values then range from
100% if all members are possible in a given position, to 0% if only one member can
occur in a given position and cannot even be omitted. Recall also that increasing
obligatoriness means obligatoriness on decreasing levels of grammatical structure.
Therefore the measure of structural scope, to be discussed now, may also be made use of
in the quantification of obligatoriness.
Since the structural scope of a grammaticalized item is, roughly, the level of grammatical
structure of that syntagm with which it contracts a grammatical relation, this parameter
may be measured with respect to constituent structure configurations. As a first
approximation, the structural scope of a sign might be defined as the maximal number of
nodes dominated by that constituent with which it contracts a grammatical relation,
recursion excluded. The value would range from about a dozen in the case of a clause to
one in the case of a stem or word.
Bondedness is the most difficult parameter of all to quantify. I will not consider here the
possibility of measuring the semantic dependence of a grammaticalized item and turn
immediately to phonological cohesion. The problem of measuring it reminds one of
Greenberg's (1954) agglutination index; but here we require a finer measure, because
phonological bondedness is not to be determined for all the morphemes of a language but
only for those belonging to a particular paradigm. A first attempt might consist in
counting the phonological rules which operate across the boundary separating the
grammatical formative from its coconstituent; but this could not account for those higher
degrees of fusion where phonological adaptation is already morphologized. Another
approach would be to determine the number of allomorphs per morpheme, because
allomorphy usually increases with bondedness. But probably this is not completely
reliable either, because there might be infixes with only one allomorph. For the time
being, the best alternative would seem to consist in determining, with the help of
grammatical tests such as those discussed in ch. 4.3.2, the morphological status of a
grammaticalized item as one of the following: (a) free, stressable morpheme, (b) clitic
morpheme, (c) agglutinative affix, (d) fusional affix, (e) amalgamated in a flexional
affix, (f) infix or symbolic alternation. These degrees of bondedness would be assigned
integer values along an ordinal scale from six to one, so that the value decreases, with
increasing bondedness, parallel to those of other parameters.
The syntagmatic variability of an item should be somehow determined by the number of
positions that it may assume in a syntagm. This presupposes that we have an idea of
which positions it might theoretically occupy. If we reduce the problem to binary
constructions, made up of a grammatical formative and its coconstituent, we may say
that there are, in principle, four positions for the former: either immediately before or
after its coconstituent, or at some distance before or after it.54 Then we might assign two
points for each of the available positions and subtract one of them if the position is
available only under certain restricted circumstances or if it is, on the contrary,
obligatory under other circumstances. This yields a scale of values from seven to one
along which syntagmatic variability decreases. The rough and tentative nature of this
proposal is obvious. Methodological studies on the analysis of free vs. fixed word order
are lacking in the literature; cf., at any rate, Steele 1978.
So much should suffice to show that all of the six criteria of grammaticalization are in
principle operationalizable and yield parameters which are quantifiable independently of
each other. Formulated in mathematical terms, grammaticalization is a vector whose
variables are the six magnitudes which we have here been calling parameters. Any sign
or paradigm of signs may be assigned a value along each of the parameters, and the six
figures together can be taken to characterize its degree of grammaticality.
I have not yet succeeded in establishing a common formal basis for the quantification of
the parameters; the six proposals for their quantification are still somewhat ad hoc and
heterogeneous. However, their numerical behavior is roughly comparable: All of them
have been designed to exhibit decreasing values with increasing grammaticalization. On
the left they are open-ended. They assume manageable values at levels where interest in
grammaticalization can reasonably set in and decrease steadily until they reach the
opposite pole, which has the value one for all of them. If grammaticalization proceeds
further, the parameter of integrity assumes the value zero, whereas the others cease to
be applicable (cf., however, ch. 4.4.4). Thus the formal requirements for their
comparison and for a test of their correlation are fulfilled in principle. In the following,
I will refrain from actual quantification, partly because it is practically not yet possible,
partly because what I want to show can be adequately shown at an informal level.
54
If the coconstituent of formative X is internally complex, consisting, say, of head A and modi-
fier B, the sequence AXB is also possible. But it appears that this testifies more to the syntagmatic
variability of B than to that of X.
4.4.2. Correlation among the parameters

In the preceding sections, the six grammaticalization parameters were discussed, as far
as possible, in mutual isolation. However, it was made clear from the start that they are
theoretically interconnected and must therefore be expected to correlate. T6 summarizes
the behavior of the parameters and displays their correlation.
T6. Correlation of grammaticalization parameters
weak strong
! process 6
parameter grammaticalization grammaticalization
integrity bundle of semantic
few semantic features;
features; ! attrition 6
oligo- or monosegmental
possibly polysyllabic
paradigmaticity item participates loosely paradigmatici- small, tightly integrated
! 6
in semantic field zation paradigm
paradigmatic free choice of items choice systematically
obligatorificati-
variability according to communicati- ! 6 constrained, use largely
on
ve intentions obligatory
structural scope item relates to constituent item modifies word or
! condensation 6
of arbitrary complexity stem
bondedness item is affix or even
item is independently
! coalescence 6 phonological feature of
juxtaposed
carrier
syntagmatic item can be shifted

! fixation 6 item occupies fixed slot
variability around freely
T6 can be taken as the common denominator of all grammaticalization scales. It is our

contention that a normal grammaticalization process obeys the following condition: an
item which is grammaticalized in a construction will occupy a point on each of the six
parameters in such a way that the six points are roughly on a vertical line. I will return in
the next section to the question of what is meant by a normal grammaticalization process,
and discuss here some theoretical considerations and empirical evidence which make
such a correlation plausible.
Correlation of the paradigmatic parameters among each other is, to some extent, a logical
necessity. Meaning, or meaningfulness implies choice (Lyons 1977:33); and if more
meaning is to be conveyed (semanticity), either the choice must be expanded
(paradigmaticity), or it must be relieved from constraints (paradigmatic variability).
Conversely, if an item is opposed only to a few similar ones or cannot but appear under
certain circumstances, its semanticity will be correspondingly low. The well known
correlation between desemanticization, dropping of selection restrictions and the rise of

text frequency may be recalled here. Nevertheless, the dependence is not complete.
Obviously a paradigm may contain members which are semantically not well distinct and
thus have a relatively low semanticity; this occasionally occurs with noun classes and
adpositions. Again, there are logical connections among some of the parameters of
syntagmatic autonomy. The syntagmatic variability of an item can increase only if its
structural scope likewise increases.
As for the relationship between the paradigmatic and syntagmatic parameters, it might be
necessary to dispell a possible misunderstanding. It is sometimes said that in order to
convey a meaning of a given specificity, the language user has a choice between
paradigmatic and syntagmatic means. For example, if a German wants to specify a horse
as black or white, he may either make up the expressions schwarzes Pferd and weies
Pferd, enlarging the message, or choose the words Rappen and Schimmel, drawing on a
larger code, as it were. This is necessarily so, for reasons of information theory.
However, two points must be observed here. First, there is no real alternative between
paradigmatic and syntagmatic means. All the four expressions in question are items
taken from a paradigm and are, at the same time, syntagms (embedded in larger
syntagms). It is not possible to exclude the paradigmatic in favor of the syntagmatic, or
vice versa. Second, the fundamental issue of grammaticalization is not how to convey a
meaning of a given specificity, but rather how much freedom to invest in the
construction of a linguistic sign, and, accordingly, with how much autonomy to invest
the component signs. The autonomy which a sign enjoys in its paradigm is necessarily
reflected by its autonomy in the syntagm; there is thus no complementarity, but
parallelism.
Correlations among several of the parameters have long been observed (cf. also Heine &
Reh 1984:62-68). In a passage dealing with the freedom with which linguistic units are
made up, R. Jakobson (1956) writes:
Thus, in the combination of linguistic units there is an ascending scale of
freedom. In the combination of distinctive features into phonemes, /243/ the
freedom of the individual speaker is zero: the code has already established all
the possibilities which may be utilized in the given language. Freedom to
combine phonemes into words is circumscribed; it is limited to the marginal
situation of word coinage. In forming sentences with words the speaker is less
constrained. And finally, in the combination of sentences into utterances, the
action of compulsory syntactic rules ceases, and the freedom of any
individual speaker to create novel contexts increases substantially, although
again the numerous stereotyped utterances are not to be overlooked.
Jakobson then goes on to establish combination (syntagmatic aspect) and selection
(paradigmatic aspect) as the two fundamental modes of any language operation. His
scale of freedom appears to involve two of our parameters in particular, the integrity and
the syntagmatic variability of a sign. It is especially noteworthy that Jakobson prolongs
the scale down to the phoneme and even the phonological feature. In ch. 5.3 we will
return to the problem of their integration into grammaticalization scales.
As an example of the correlation between integrity and syntagmatic variability, the
German adpositions may be adduced. Some secondary adpositions, including wegen
because of, gem in conformity with, entsprechend corresponding to, zufolge
acccording to, entlang along, may be used either as prepositions or as postpositions.
All the primary adpositions of the language are exclusively prepositions.
The negative correlation between semanticity and paradigmaticity has been confirmed by
F. Serzisko in several writings on numeral classifiers (e.g. 1980:23f). If there are
comparatively few classifiers, they will have a comparatively unspecific meaning. If a
language has a large paradigm of noun classes which have no semantic basis, this
unstable situation tends to be settled by reducing the number of classes. Recall,
furthermore, the discussion of adpositions (p. 84) and of cases (99f), which may be
layered, within a language, in subparadigms of correlatively decreasing size and
semanticity.
In discussing the same correlation, Langacker (1977:112f) speaks of a correlation
between the gradients of semantic content and expressive salience. Langacker's notion
of expressive salience comprises not only phonological integrity, but also major category
status, with corresponding larger structural scope and lower bondedness. A further
example of this relationship is the formation of possessive pronouns alongside personal
pronouns. If the latter are weakly grammaticalized, it can happen that there are no special
possessive pronouns; instead a regular genitive (or possessive construction) of the
personal pronouns is formed. This is the case, e.g., in Japanese (high integrity, low
paradigmaticity, low cohesion). If personal pronouns are highly grammaticalized, as, e.g.
in English, there tends to be a subparadigm of possessive pronouns which cannot be
derived from the personal ones by rules of grammar (values reverse).
Special attention has been devoted in the recent past to the correlation between structural
scope and syntagmatic variability. It has been emphasized repeatedly (Givn 1979[L]:
205-209; Comrie 1981:80) that freedom of word order in a language is never greater at
subconstituent level than at constituent level. A fine example is the NP containing a
number and a numeral classifier (see Greenberg 1975:29). The constituent structure is,
irrespective of sequential order, as shown in F11.
F11. Structure of numeral classifier phrase
(CP = classifier phrase;

C1 = classifier)
While the order of the numeral and the classifier within the CP is almost always fixed,
the relative word order of the CP and the counted noun is variable in many languages,
e.g. Malay. Ascending the levels of constituent structure, we usually find syntagmatic
variability in the VP greater than in the NP (cf. Givn 1975:92f), and in independent
clauses greater than in subordinate ones. In Vedic, adverbs are normally constructed as
preverbs in subordinate clauses, whereas they enjoy greater freedom in main clauses
(correlation of structural scope, bondedness and syntagmatic variability, see p. 87f). With
regard to main constituent order, mention may be made of the numerous languages such
as German, Basque, Quechua and Turkish which have a rigid verb-final order in
subordinate clauses, but varying degrees of freedom and deviation from verb-final order
in main clauses (cf. Ross 1973). Such statements comprise, of course, the order among
elements none of which need be grammaticalized or even equipped with a grammatical
marker, and therefore provoke problems which we will deal with in ch. 4.4.4.
So much should suffice to make a significant correlation among the six parameters
plausible. Quantification along the lines sketched in ch. 4.4.1 would certainly prove it. If
linguistic theory were further developed, it would perhaps allow us to hierarchize the
parameters, proving that some of them depend on the others and thus dispensing with
them. It seems clear that such a relationship will not be shown within each of the pairs
comprising a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic parameter. As has been argued
convincingly by scholars such as de Saussure, Hjelmslev and Jakobson, the paradigmatic
and the syntagmatic, or selection and combination, are two fundamental and mutually
irreducible modes of any language operation. One might, however, consider that weight
and variability are coordinate, while cohesion is subordinate to both of them. One might
go further and postulate primacy for weight on account of the fact that the whole
business of reinforcement appears to be essentially directed at restoring integrity. On the
other hand, it is good to remember that it is the parameter of syntagmatic cohesion that
has seemed fundamental to the founders of agglutination theory, and that Jespersen
proposed to call it coalescence theory. I therefore conclude that any attempt at
hierarchizing the parameters would be premature.
Assuming now that the six parameters normally correlate and jointly constitute the
grammaticalization of an item or a paradigm, we may compute its global degree of
grammaticalization as a function of the six values. Items and paradigms may then be
compared as to their grammaticality values. This may be done at a variety of levels. It
has already been mentioned that a large paradigm can sometimes be split up into several
subparadigms of different degrees of grammaticality; recall the example of the cases and
the adpositions. Givn (1975:86) shows how his criteria (which are included in mine)
can be applied to the set of coverbs present in a language. As a result, the coverbs may
be ordered on a scale between full verb and adposition. Differences among the items are
gradual, and it may well be impossible to draw a line between coverb and adposition.
The gradualness of the phenomena lies in the nature of grammaticalization itself. The
fact that different degrees of grammaticality may be represented by the members of one
synchronic paradigm is a consequence of the fact that grammaticalization need not seize
all the relevant full verbs at once and transform them simultaneously, but acts upon verbs
of a certain kind at any moment in language history that they become available; cf. p. 35
for personal pronouns.
At a somewhat higher level, we may compare grammatical paradigms within a language
which are functionally similar. Obvious candidates are the various classes of more or less
grammaticalized items which have filled the grammaticalization scales in ch. 3. The
paradigm of the cases will be compared with that of the adpositions, that of the
auxiliaries with that of the synthetic aspects and this with the paradigm of tenses. The
paradigm of the free personal pronouns, of the clitic personal pronouns and of the
personal affixes (e.g. in the Romance languages) will be compared as to their degree of
grammaticality. For one thing, this will confirm and make more precise the various
grammaticalization scales that have been set up. Moreover, it will shed some light on the
distance between functionally similar paradigms within a language. As we will see in
ch. 7.2, this differs from one language to another and contributes to its typological
characterization.
Finally, functionally similar paradigms may be compared as to their degree of
grammaticality at the cross-linguistic level. The Turkish case system can be compared to
the Latin one, or the systems of auxiliary verbs of the Romance languages can be
compared with each other. All such comparisons presuppose, of course, the functional
similarity of the paradigms in question as a tertium comparationis (cf. p. 111f). If this is
granted, the grammaticality values which may be assigned to the grammatical
subsystems of a language may be taken to characterize the language. This point will also
be taken up in ch. 7.2.
4.4.3. Lack of correlation

In the same rather intuitive fashion in which we have found ourselves being able to
assign degrees of grammaticality along each of the parameters and to judge on their
correlation without having actually applied the measures, we can see that in some cases
the parameters do not correlate. Grammaticalization according to one or the other of

them may hasten ahead or lag behind. The following phenomena strike the eye as being
unexpected within the general framework that has been developed.
Whenever an inflectional paradigm comprises more than a few subcategories, there is the
prima facie suspicion that paradigmaticity is lower than other parameters of
grammaticality. For example, Permyak has 17 (Comrie 1981[l]:119) or even 21 (Auster-
litz 1980:238) cases, while the average number of cases in a language does not appear to
be more than half a dozen. This example may perhaps be explained away by assuming
several layers of cases, of differing degrees of grammaticality. The same explanation will
not hold, however, for unusually extensive noun class sytems. Languages with two or
three genders, such as the Indo-European ones, or around half a dozen classes
(Pama-Nyungan, North-Caucasian, Swahili and other Bantu languages), appear to be the
norm. However, the West-Atlantic language Ful is said (Heine et al. (eds.) 1981:51) to
possess 20 to 25 noun classes. Further inspection of this language would have to show,
first of all whether this figure has to be divided by two because noun class and number
have been mixed up (as usual in African linguistics), and furthermore, whether Ful noun
classes are, according to the other parameters, less grammaticalized than or as
grammaticalized as the noun classes familiar from other Niger-Congo languages. It
should be remembered that the sheer size of a paradigm is only one of the aspects of
paradigmaticity, and that we perhaps tend to attribute too much weight to it due to the
fact that it is the most directly quantifiable parameter of all.
Disproportions of quite a different kind may be observed when a sign is rather strongly
grammaticalized according to all of the parameters except that it has a relatively large
structural scope. The relative pronoun familiar from the more archaic Indo-European
languages is an amalgamation of three grammatical concepts: a pronominal element
which functions as the marker of a certain syntactic position in the relative clause; a
conjunction which subordinates the relative clause; and an attributor which links it with
the head noun (details in Lehmann 1984, ch. IV.4). It is common in languages for these
three functions to be expressed separately; so there is certainly a basis for recognizing a
high degree of bondedness in the Indo-European style relative pronoun. In fact, it is
rather strongly grammaticalized according to all of the parameters, except that it serves
to form finite subordinate clauses, thus operating at a high syntactic level.
Another disproportion between bondedness and the other parameters may be recognized
in sentence sandhi phenomena. Phonological rules of assimilation and the like operate,
in some languages such as Sanskrit and Ow ? on? Afa Yoruba (Heine & Reh 1984:26f), not
only between the morphemes of a word, but also across word boundaries in a sentence.
While the phenomenon in Yoruba might point to a specially tight relationship between
verb and object, in Sanskrit it is completely general and does not have any obvious
semantic counterpart. It is therefore not clear whether sentence sandhi should be viewed
as a hastening forward of bondedness as against the other parameters.
In some languages to which discourse analysis has been applied, phenomena have
emerged which might be characterized in terms of the parameter structural scope lagging
behind the others. Wiesemann (1980) shows that in Kaingng the sequencing of sentence
adverbs and aspects in a chain of sentences obeys textual restrictions. We appear to be
faced here with the grammaticalization, especially in terms of obligatorification, of
structural phenomena which belong to a high level of grammatical structure.
Finally, the combination of to + infinitive in English is probably an example of bonded-
ness lagging behind the other parameters. As we have seen (p. 134f), to is relatively
loosely bonded, whereas it must certainly be considered highly grammaticalized in terms
of such parameters as semanticity and paradigmatic variability (obligatoriness).
The last example clearly shows how problematic such judgements are. In the passage
referred to, we compared English to with German zu and found that the bondedness of
German zu was higher. How can we justify saying that Engl. to is relatively loosely
bonded, rather than saying that bondedness of German zu has proceeded farther than the
other grammaticalization parameters? Let us assume, for the moment, that such questions
will receive an answer through the quantification of the parameters and pursue here the
different question of how such disproportions among grammaticalization parameters, if
they do exist, have to be incorporated into the theory.
Let me hasten to state that we have at present no explanation for a lack of correlation
among the grammaticalization parameters. For one thing, we have no theoretical basis
which would lead us to predict a 100% correlation, or a correlation of whatever
percentage, for that matter. Insofar as no clear-cut theoretical principles are violated,
there is no real exception that would require an explanation. But suppose we had a basis
for saying that some of these disproportion phenomena are significant. We would then be
able to distinguish between a normal grammaticalization process, in which all the
parameters correlate to a high degree, and an exceptional one, in which some or all of the
parameters assume values independently of each other. In order to explain the
exceptional cases, we would have to look for two things: First, a principle which governs
the structuring of language systems, which has rather the same structural scope as
grammaticalization itself, but which may counteract it. Second, an analysis of how the
two principles have interacted in the specific cases at hand, within each language system.
The second task will not be approached in this book. The general principle which I will
make responsible for lack of correlation in grammaticalization parameters is analogy.
This will be treated in detail in ch. 5.4. Here I will only call attention to the fact that such
disproportions contribute to characterizing a language, to distinguishing it from other
languages. If in the case system of a language all the grammaticalization parameter
correlate neatly, this will be a language with a case system like dozens or hundreds of
others. But if one or two parameters do not conform, paradigmaticity, e.g., being
especially low, this makes the language unusual and contributes to its individuality. I will
try to make this more precise in the chapter on typology.
4.4.4. Reduction to zero and fixation of word order

I have said that when integrity reaches the pole of maximal grammaticalization, namely
when significans and significatum of a grammatical formative become zero, all the other
grammaticalization parameters cease to be applicable. We may now modify this
somewhat. First of all, one member of a paradigm may become zero, while the others
subsist. The zero element may then remain a member of the paradigm, namely its
unmarked member, and all the grammaticalization parameters continue to be applicable.
Thus, in German nouns we reckon with four cases, including a nominative, although this
is morphologically always zero. Moreover, even in situations where paradigms are not
easy to establish, linguists have worked with zero formatives. This has been common in
category conversion, for instance in the adjectivalization of nominals or the nominaliza-
tion of clauses or verbals. This is often achieved without an overt translative functor,
which may legitimately be hypostasized as a zero functor. In such a case, one of the
grammaticalization parameters continues to be applicable, namely that of structural
scope. Obviously, it is possible to determine the grammatical level of a syntagm whose
category is converted even if there is no translative functor. Now, the hypothesis of the
correlation among grammaticalization parameters would appear to predict that zero
translatives must have a minimal structural scope, i.e. occur only in the conversion of
stems.
We return here to the problem raised in ch. 3.3.2 in connection with the grammaticaliza-
tion scale of nominalization. There we saw that nominalization of verbs by a zero affix
is a common process, not only in English, but also in Mandarin. Here the structural scope
of the nominalizer is indeed minimal. However, it is also possible, in English and
Mandarin, to nominalize a whole finite clause (i.e. to embed it in an NP position) without
an overt subordinator. Here the structural scope of the zero nominalizer is maximal. The
reader is asked to verify the examples (e.g. E25 and E31 in ch. 3.3.2) and note that they
are strictly comparable. In both cases, the nominalizer, being semantically zero, achieves
nothing by itself. The nominalizing force lies exclusively in the context. This is, in the
case of a nominalized clause, the syntactic position of an NP, commonly the function of
subject or direct object. In the case of a nominalized verb, it very often is the definite
article, as in English, Arosi or Ancient Greek; in Bantu languages, the noun class prefi-
xes fulfill the function of a nominalizing context. So do we have to recognize here
another case of lacking correlation among grammaticalization parameters? Or is zero not
necessarily the end of a grammaticalization process?
Zero grammatical formatives may indeed show up at various points on a grammaticali-
zation scale, but with a different status. This becomes clear as soon as they are seen as
members of paradigms. On the parameters of paradigmaticity and paradigmatic
variability, the zero nominalizer in I know she loves me is quite different from that in the
love. The zero complementizer participates in an open and heterogeneous paradigm of
subordinating conjunctions (low paradigmaticity), many of which may be substituted for
each other and by zero in many contexts (cf. I know that/when/since/if she loves me
high paradigmatic variability). The zero nominalizing affix, on the other hand,
participates in no paradigm; instead it constitutes a paradigm in and of itself. In almost
no context is there a choice of nominalizing a given verb either by zero or by some other
affix. What we have, instead, is either of two things. We may have a set of nominalizing
suffixes such as -al (refusal) or -t (drift); these are not interchangeable, but rather
irregularly bound to specific subsets of verb stems: they are not grammaticalized, but
lexicalized (see ch. 5.2). Or we have the grammaticalized nominalizing suffix -ing. But
this does not form a paradigm with zero, since it is less grammaticalized on all counts.
For example, its structural scope is greater; cf. her loving John. The solution to our
dilemma therefore lies in the remark made at the beginning of this section. If a whole
paradigm of grammatical formatives becomes zero, this is indeed the end of
grammaticalization. But quite apart from this, one member of a paradigm may be zero,
or a sign may be simply optional. The zero appearing here is not an index of high
grammaticalization, but, on the contrary, of low paradigmaticity and absence of
obligatoriness, thus of low grammaticalization. In fact, such zeros will typically occur at
the beginning of a grammaticalization scale, since optionality decreases further to the
end.
An analog to this situation in nominalization may be found in adverbial or case relations.
In ch. 3.4.1.4 we saw that adverbs juxtaposed to an NP may be at the origin of adposi-
tions and later case affixes. Such constructions have a very low degree of grammaticali-
ty; and the adverb may be substituted by a host of others, or it may be simply lacking, for
instance in a sentence such as E65. At the opposite pole of the scale, we have zero case
endings, as in English or the Romance languages. They form a closed paradigm, namely
that of the cases dependent on verbal government, and they are not optional (substitut-
able by overt affixes); they are completely grammaticalized. This shows that it is
essential to distinguish between the reduction of a grammatical paradigm to zero and
such a zero formative which is merely an optional (weakly grammaticalized)
formative.
One instance of a grammaticalization parameter which may still be measured even if a
paradigm is reduced to zero has just been shown to be its structural scope. Another one
is syntagmatic variability, when this is suitably extended to grammatical relations not
necessarily contracted by the grammatical formative itself. I have occasionally referred
to a distinction between unirelational and birelational grammatical formatives.
Unirelational formatives, such as gender and number markers on nouns, or tense markers
on verbs, contract only one grammatical relation, namely the one which in the course of
grammaticalization becomes the morphological relation to their carrier. Birelational
formatives contract, in addition to this primary relation, a secondary, less intimate one to
another constituent. The most important birelational formatives are pronominal elements
marking cross-reference and adverbial/adpositional elements marking case relations.
Both of these mainly express a relation between a verb and an NP, the difference being
that the pronominal elements attach to the verb and refer to the NP, while case markers
attach to the NP and refer to the verb. Their ultimate function, namely to signal which
NP is related to the verb in which way, is similar, but they achieve it in quite different
ways. In particular, the locus of personal agreement affixes is the pure syntactic
relations, because these tend to inhere in the carrier of such affixes, while the locus of
case affixes is the more concrete relations, because these do not inhere in relational
terms, but instead are freely assumed by more independent, marginal actants (cf. the
discussion in ch.3.4.2.1 and Lehmann 1983, 4). Nevertheless, both agreement affixes
and cases may be grammaticalized to zero, with the consequence that renovations
apart the syntactic relation has no overt expression. It is commonly assumed that in
such cases the relation is expressed by the sequential ordering of the relata. My purpose
here is to show how this structural means, which is fundamentally different in nature
from segmental means, can come to substitute the latter. It will become clear that there
is no simple alternative either segmental means or sequential ordering , but that the
two are always and regularly connected with each other through grammaticalization.
In ch. 3.2.1.2 we saw that the agglutination of a personal pronoun to its governing term
as an agreement affix (primary relation) is accompanied by a tightening of the anaphoric
(secondary) relation between it and the NP it refers to. This NP is gradually attracted into
the sphere of the carrier of the agreement affix, called the relational term. The relation
between the pronominal element and the NP gradually turns into a relation between the
relational term and the NP, mediated by the agreement marker; and in the end, when the
agreement marker becomes zero, it is a direct syntactic relation of government between
the relational term and the NP. This is a grammaticalization process, as we have seen in
ch. 3.4.2. Therefore, the syntagmatic variability of the NP vis--vis its relational partner
first the pronoun, then the relational term decreases gradually. From maximal
variability at the pre-agreement stage, it reduces to the availability of a few positions
within the clause; and finally, when the NP is subject to government without a
grammatical marker and grammaticalization is highest, the syntagmatic variability score
may even be reduced to one. The result is the fixed position of the unmarked subject,
direct object and possessive attribute vis--vis their governors in some languages such as
Chinese, English or Bambara.
A similar course is taken by an NP which starts by bearing a marked adverbial relation
to the verb. To the degree that this is grammaticalized, not only does the adverbial relator
become attached to the NP as a case marker (primary relation); but also the NP changes
from an adjunct in a marginal position (secondary relation) to a complement in a more
central position. When it is attracted into the government of the verb, the case tends to
become zero. A natural part of this grammaticalization process is again the decrease in
the syntagmatic variability of the NP vis--vis its governor.
The point of this discussion is that we do not get a simple dichotomy of fixed vs. free
word order, nor one of segmental vs. positional means. Instead, fixed word order is to be
seen as low syntagmatic variability, within the whole framework of grammaticalization.
In ch. 3.4.2.3 we saw that there is a gradience of grammaticalization from functional
sentence perspective to syntax. In the same sense, Meillet (1912:147f) had already noted
that word order in Latin was free and signalled expressive nuances, while in French it
was fixed and signalled syntactic relations; and this change, said Meillet, was a
grammaticalization process. Consider, as an example not yet repeated, attribution. On
p. 64, we saw that agreement markers on attributes result from the grammaticalization of
personal pronouns serving as the anaphoric heads of the attributes (primary relation). At
this stage, syntagmatic variability of the attribute vis--vis the referent of the pronoun
the subsequent head of attribution (secondary relation) is maximal. As the pronoun
becomes an agreement affix, the attribute comes nearer to its head. This is the situation
in Latin, where syntagmatic variability of adjective attributes would have a value
according to the numerical scale of ch. 4.4.1 of somewhere between three and seven,
depending on style. As agreement is reduced, syntagmatic variability decreases; in
French, the value would be two, because both the positions immediately before and after
the head are available, but only under certain constraints. In English, where there is no
agreement of adjective attributes, their order with respect to the head is fixed, i.e. their
syntagmatic variability score is one.
We are now prepared to take up a problem which we had raised and left open on p. 5.
There we noted a contradiction between the otherwise parallel scales of grammatical
concepts set up by W. v. Humboldt and E. Sapir. Expression of grammatical concepts, or
rather relations, by position is arranged near the beginning of the scale (at stage II) by
Humboldt, but near its end by Sapir. At first blush, it might appear that Humboldt was
wrong and Sapir was right, since fixed word order has just been analyzed as low
syntagmatic variability, and syntagmatic variability reaches its low point at the end, not
at the beginning, of a grammaticalization scale. Closer inspection of the problem,
however, reveals that Humboldt and Sapir meant different things and are both right.
Suppose there is a birelational grammatical formative Z which attaches to constituent X
and relates it to Y. Then syntagmatic variability may be observed both within the primary
relation Z-X and within the secondary relation Z-Y, and it will be greater in the latter
than in the former. Now if Z is reduced to zero, we get a direct relation Y-X, and
syntagmatic variability in this relation will be lower than if X and Y were related by
segmental means. Given that Z is birelational, the output of the grammaticalization scale
in which it is reduced to zero is not the bare X, but X in the non-segmentally expressed
relation Z to Y, with a certain, relatively low degree of syntagmatic variability between
X and Y. Suppose now that Y is, in its turn, grammaticalized. This means that the
construction X-Y, with the very same syntagmatic variability as before, is the input to a
grammaticalization scale. In its course, Y will attach to X, and syntagmatic variability
between them will again be annulled.
Possible examples of this development are serial verb constructions. In one variant, Y is
a coverb, X its nominal complement and Z the case marker of X. Here the first
grammaticalization scale leads from whatever its initial element is to an affixal case
marker (Z affixed to X), and the second one leads from a serial verb (coverb) to a case
marker (Y affixed to X). In another variant, Y is a serial verb assuming an aspectual
function, X is the full verb and Z a complementizer or nominalizer subordinating the full
verb. In this variant, the first grammaticalization scale leads from whatever its initial
element is to a nominalizing affix (Z affixed to X), and the second one leads from a
serial verb to an aspect marker (Y affixed to X). In both variants, as long as Z ist still
present, Y is not yet a serial verb; but it may be one as soon as Z is zero.
Having now established that one and the same construction, with a given degree of syn-
tagmatic variability, may both be the output of one grammaticalization scale and the
input to another one (or even to the same one), we can see that both Humboldt and Sapir
had the construction X-Y in mind. But Sapir was looking at it as the output of the first
grammaticalization channel, where the relation expressed by Z is increasingly expressed
by the fixed order of X and Y; while Humboldt was looking at it as the input to the
second grammaticalization channel, where Y is still independent, but has fixed word
order in relation to X.
This problem could not have arisen if syntagmatic variability between X and Y were
greatest at the moment where Y enters a grammaticalization scale and lowest at the
moment where it is about to disappear. (Then both Humboldt and Sapir would be wrong,
because the notion of word order would be inapplicable to the construction X-Z, and
word order would be completely free in the construction X-Y.) In reality, however, the
phase of the parameter of syntagmatic variability is somewhat displaced as against the
others, since it normally reaches its lowest point already at the stage where Z is ag-
glutinated to X and then cannot decrease further while Z is gradually reduced to zero. On
the other hand, at the beginning of a grammaticalization scale, the order between X and
Y is not maximally free; it decreases long before Y shows the first symptoms of
grammaticalization. In the case of a birelational Z, it is therefore not only theoretically
sound to include its secondary relation into the account, but it is methodologically profi-
table, since once Z is agglutinated to X, no further decrease in its syntagmatic variability
can be observed, whereas it becomes increasingly interesting to observe syntagmatic
variability in the secondary relation to Y.
F12 sums up this discussion by displaying two things at once: first, the behavior of
syntagmatic variability in both the primary and the secondary grammatical relations of Z
while this is reduced to zero; and second, the phase-displacement of syntagmatic
variability as against the other grammaticalization parameters, here represented by
integrity.
F12. Reduction to zero and fixation of word order
grammaticalization scale I grammaticalization scale II
integrity of Z
synt. var.
of Z as to X
syntagmatic variability Y
as to Z as to X-Z as to X
integrity of Y
agglutination Z= agglutination Y=
of Z to X of Y to X
The picture is to be read as follows: One side of each of the two wedges symbolizing
decrease in syntagmatic variability has been prolonged to the right, both to suggest that
the notion continues to be applicable even after the agglutination stage, but that no
further decrease occurs, and to illustrate how the carrier of the affix becomes the
reference point for the secondary grammatical relation and exhibits syntagmatic
variability with respect to a third term. We also see that at the point where Z becomes
zero, word order between X and Y is already fairly fixed.
We may anticipate that the subsumption of word order in the framework of
grammaticalization will lead to a new appraisal of the attempts to typologize languages
according to their word-order patterns. This will be done in ch. 7.2.
The last lesson that this discussion teaches concerns the level at which grammaticaliza-
tion works. A view that concentrates on the historical fate of single words and
morphemes is too atomistic. Grammaticalization reduces not only the integrity, but also
the scope of a sign. This means that it shifts signs down the hierarchy of grammatical
levels, and it does this simultaneously to a given sign and to the sign of which the former
is a proper grammatical part. One cannot but agree with Givn's (1979[d]:94) proposal
to treat syntacticization and the rise of grammatical morphology as two mutually

dependent parts of the same process.
INDICES
Abbreviations
Language abbvreviations
The following language names have been abbreviated in the examples:
Accadic Mandarin
Amharic Mangarayi
Avestic Nahuatl
Dyirbal Portuguese
English Quechua
Finnish Somali
French Swahili
German Tok Pisin
Hittite Totonac
Hungarian Tswana
Italian Turkish
Japanese Uzbek
Kalkatungu Vedic
Grammatical categories in interlinear morphemic translations

ABL ablative D3 determiner of 3.ps. deixis
ABS absolutive DAT dative
ACC accusative DEF definite
ADJVR adjectivizer DEM demonstrative
ALL allative DES desiderative
AN animate DET determiner
ART article DIR directional
ASP aspect DU dual
AT attributor DYN dynamic
AUX auxiliary EL elative
CL noun class ERG ergative
COLL collective EXIST existence
COMPL completive F feminine
CONN connective FIN finite
CONT continuative FOC focus
COP copula FUT future
D1 determiner of 1.ps. deixis GEN genitive
Abbreviations 161
GER gerund SBJV subjunctive

HAB habitual SEP separative
HON honorific SG singular
HUM human SIM simultaneous
ILL illative SR subordinator
IMP imperative SUPER superlative/-essive
IND indefinite TERM terminative
INDEP independent TOP topic
INESS inessive TR transitive
INF infinitive VOL volitional
INST instrumental
INT interrogative
IO indirect object
LAT lative (directional)
LOC locative
M masculine
MID middle voice
N neuter
NEG negative
NHUM non-human
NOM nominative
NONSG non-singular
NR nominalizer
OBJ object (verb affix position)
OBL oblique (affix position)
PART participle
PAST past tense
PERL perlative
PL plural
POL polite
POSS possessor (nominal affix
position)
PRAET praeterlative
PF perfect
PROG progressive aspect
PRS present
PST past
PTL particle
RDP reduplication
REAL realized
REFL reflexive
REL relative
SBJ subject (verb affix position)
Indices 162
Bibliographical references
Alpatov, V.M. 1980, Sistema linych mestoimenij 1-go i 2-go lica v sovremennom
japonskom jazyke. Vardul' (ed.) 1980:3-26.
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977, On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. Li
(ed.) 1977:317-363.
Andr, Jacques 1978, Les mots a redoublement en latin. Paris: Klincksieck.
Arens, Hans 1969II, Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis
zur Gegenwart. Freiburg & Mnchen: K. Alber.
Ashby, William J. 1981, The loss of the negative particle ne in French: a syntactic
change in progress. Language 57:674-687.
Austerlitz, Robert 1980, Typology and universals on a Eurasian east-west continuum.
Brettschneider & Lehmann (eds.) 1980:235-244.
Bazell, Charles E. 1949, Syntactic relations and linguistic typology. Cahiers Ferdi-
nand de Saussure 8:5-20.
Benveniste, Emile 1968, Mutations of linguistic categories. Lehmann, W.P. & Mal-
kiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. A symposium. Austin &
London: University of Texas Press; 83-94.
Bloch, Jules 1954, The grammatical structure of Dravidian languages. Poona: Deccan
College (Deccan College Hand-Book Series, 3).
Bloomfield, Leonard 1933, Language. New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1978, Intonation across languages. Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 1:471-
524.
Bopp, Franz 1816, ber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung
mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache.
Frankfurt (M.): Andresche Buchhandlung. Reprint 1975 (Documenta semiotica -
Serie 1).
Bopp, Franz 1833-52, Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen,
Lateinischen, Litauischen, Altslawischen, Gothischen und Deutschen. Berlin.
Bossong, Georg 1979, Typologie der Hypotaxe. Folia Linguistica 13:33-54.
Brettschneider, Gunter 1978, Baskisch. Studium Linguistik 5:67-75.
Brettschneider, Gunter 1980, Zur Typologie komplexer Stze. Brettschneider &
Lehmann (eds.) 1980:192-198.
Brettschneider, Gunter & Lehmann, Christian (eds.) 1980, Wege zur Universalienfor-
schung. Sprachwissenschaftliche Beitrge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob
Seiler. Tbingen: G. Narr.
Bybee, Joan L. [1981], What's a possible inflectional category. SUNY at Buffalo: un-
publ. ms.
Capell, Arthur 1971, Arosi grammar. Canberra: Australian National University.
Clark, Marybeth 1979, Coverbs: evidence for the derivation of prepositions from verbs
New Evidence from Hmong. Working Papers in Linguistic (University of
Hawaii) 11(2):1-12.
Cole, Desmond T. 1955, An introduction to Tswana grammar. London etc.: Longmans,
Green & Co.
Cole, Peter 1982, Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland (LDS, 5).
Comrie, Bernard 1981, The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge
University (Cambridge Language Surveys).
Comrie, Bernard 1981, Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and
morphology. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Condillac, tienne Bonnot de 1746, Essai sur l'origine des connaissances humaines.
Paris.
Coseriu, Eugenio 1974, Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. Das Problem des
Sprachwandels. bersetzt von Helga Sohre. Mnchen: W. Fink.
Coseriu, Eugenio 1979, Verbinhalt, Aktanten, Diathese. Zur japanischen Ukemi-Bil-
dung. Ezawa, K. & Rensch, K.H. (eds.), Sprache und Sprachen. Festschrift fr
Eberhard Zwirner zum 80. Geburtstag. Tbingen: M. Niemeyer; 35-55.
Coulmas, Florian 1980, Zur Personaldeixis im Japanischen. Papiere zur Linguistik
23(2):3-19.
Davies, John 1981, Kobon. Amsterdam: North-Holland (LDS, 3).
Delbrck, Berthold 1888, Altindische Syntax. Halle: M. Niemeyer (Syntaktische
Forschungen, V). Reprint: Tbingen: M. Niemeyer, 1976; Darmstadt: Wissen-
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Dillon, George L. 1977, Introduction to contemporary linguistic semantics. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (Prentice-Hall Foundations of Modern Linguistics Series).
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972, The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge &
London: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 9).
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1979, Ergativity. Language 55:59-138.
Edmondson, Jerrold A. 1978, Ergative languages, accessibility hierarchies governing
reflexives and questions of formal analysis. Abraham, W. (ed.), Valence, semantic
case, and grammatical relations. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins; 633-660.
Falkenstein, A. 1959, Das Sumerische. Leiden: Brill (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1.
Abteilung, 2. Band, 1. Abschnitt, Lfg. 1).
Faltz, Leonard M. 1977, Reflexivization. A study in universal syntax. Berkeley:
University of California. PhD Diss. (University Microfilms 77-31, 345).
Foley, William A. 1980, Toward a universal typology of the noun phrase. Studies in
Language 4:171-199.
Frei, Henri 1929, La grammaire des fautes. Introduction la linguistique fonctionnelle.
Paris: Geuthner, Genve: Kundig, Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz. Reprint: Genve:
Slatkine Reprints, 1971.
Gabelentz, Georg von der 1891, Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und
bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel Nachf. 2. berarbeitete Aufl.: Leipzig:
Tauchnitz, 1901.
Indices 164
Gary, Judith Olmstedt & Gamal-Eldin, Saad 1982, Cairene Egyptian colloquial Arabic.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Givn, Talmy 1971, Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's
field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7:394-415.
Givn, Talmy 1973, The time-axis phenomenon. Language 49:890-925.
Givn, Talmy 1975, Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. Li (ed.) 1975:
47-112.
Givn, Talmy 1978, Definiteness and referentiality. Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 4:291-330.
Givn, Talmy 1979, From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy.
Givn, T. (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York
etc.: Academic Press; 81-112.
Givn, Talmy 1979, Language typology in Africa: a critical review. Journal of African
Languages and Linguistics 1:199-224.
Givn, Talmy 1979, On understanding grammar. New York etc.: Academic Press
(Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics).
Givn, Talmy 1980, The drift away from ergativity: Diachronic potentials in Sherpa.
Folia Linguistica Historica 1:41-60.
Givn, Talmy 1981, On the development of the numeral one as an indefinite marker.
Folia Linguistica Historica 2:35-54.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1954, A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of
language. Spencer, R.F. (ed.), Method and perspective in anthropology. Papers in
honour of Wilson D. Wallis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 192-220.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1975, Dynamic aspects of word order in the numeral classifier.
Li (ed.) 1975:27-45.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978, How does a language acquire gender markers? Greenberg
(ed.) 1978, 3:47-82.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1980, Circumfixes and typological change. Traugott et al. (eds.)
1980:233-241.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) 1978, Universals of human language. 4 vols. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Guiraud, Pierre 1966, Le systme du relatif en franais populaire. Langages 3:40-48.
Haas, Mary R. 1941, Tunica. New York: J.J. Augustin (Extract from Handbook of
American Indian Languages, IV).
Haas, Mary R. 1977, From auxiliary verb phrase to inflectional suffix. Li (ed.) 1977:
525-537.
Hagge, Claude 1975, Le problme linguistique des prpositions et la solution chinoise.
Paris: Socit Linguistique de Paris (Collection Linguistique, 71).
Hagge, Claude 1978, Du thme au thme en passant par le sujet. Pour une thorie
cyclique. La linguistique 14(2):3-38.
Haiman, John 1980, Hua. A Papuan language of Eastern Highlands of New Guinea.
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins (SLCS, 5).
Hale, Kenneth L. 1976, The adjoined relative clause in Australia. Dixon, R.M.W.
(ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies; 78-105.
Haudry, Jean 1980, La syntaxe des dsinences en indo-europen. Bulletin de la
Socit de Linguistique de Paris 75:131-166.
Heine, Bernd 1980, Language typology and linguistic reconstruction: The Niger-Congo
case. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 2:95-112.
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild 1984, Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African
languages. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Heine, Bernd & Schadeberg, Thilo C. & Wolff, Ekkehard (eds.) 1981, Die Sprachen
Afrikas. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Hewitt, B. George 1979, Abkhaz. Amsterdam: North-Holland (LDS, 2).
Hjelmslev, Louis 1928, Principes de grammaire gnrale. KNbenhavn: E. Munksgaard
(Kommiss.) (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filosofiske
Meddelelser 16, 1).
Hodge, Carleton T. 1970, The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13:1-7.
Horne Tooke, John 1786/1805, }+B," BJ,D`,<J" or: The diversion of Purley. 2
vols. London.
Huang, Shuan-fan 1978, Historical change of prepositions and emergence of SOV
order. Canadian Journal of Chinese Linguistics 6:212-242.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1822, ber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen und
ihren Einflu auf die Ideenentwicklung. Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Reprint: Humboldt 1972:31-63.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1836, ber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues
und ihren Einflu auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechtes. Reprint:
Humboldt 1972:368-756.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1972IV, Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie. [= Werke in fnf
Bnden, hrsg. v. A. Flitner und K. Giel, Bd.III]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Hyman, Larry M. 1975, On the change from SOV to SVO: evidence from Niger-Con-
go. Li (ed.) 1975:113-147.
Hyman, Larry M. 1978, Word demarcation. Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 1:443-470.
Ineichen, Gustav 1980, Zur Beurteilung der lateinischen habeo-Periphrasen.
Jakobson, Roman 1936, Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. Gesamtbedeutungen der
russischen Kasus. Hamp, E., Householder, F.W. & Austerlitz, R. (eds.) 1966,
Readings in linguistics II. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press; 51-89.
Jakobson, Roman 1956, Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturb-
ances. Jakobson, R. & Halle, M. 1956, Fundamentals of language. 'S-Gravenha-
ge: Mouton & Co; 53-87.
Indices 166
Jakobson, Roman 1959, Boas' view of grammatical meaning. Jakobson, R. 1971,

Word and language. Selected writings, vol. 2. The Hague & Paris: Mouton; 489-
496.
Jakobson, Roman & Waugh, Linda R. 1979, The sound shape of language. Brighton:
Harvester Press.
Janda, Richard D. 1980, On the decline of declensional systems: the overall loss of OE
nominal case inflections and the ME reanalysis of -es as his. Traugott et al. (eds.)
1980:243-252.
Jeffers, Robert J. & Zwicky, Arnold M. 1980, The evolution of clitics. Traugott et al.
(eds.) 1980:221-231.
Jespersen, Otto 1922, Language. Its nature, development and origin. London: G. Allen
& Unwin.
Jespersen, Otto 1909-1949, A Modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols.
Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard; London: G. Allen & Unwin.
Jorden, Eleanor Harz 1962, Beginning Japanese. New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.
Kachru, Yamuna 1980, Towards a typology of compound verbs in South Asian
languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 10(1):113-124.
Kahr, Joan Casper 1975, Adpositions and locationals: typology and diachronic
development. Working Papers on Language Universals 19:21-54.
Kahr, Joan Casper 1976, The renewal of case morphology: sources and constraints.
Working Papers on Language Universals 20:107-151.
Kiparsky, Paul 1968, Tense and mood in Indo-European syntax. Foundations of
Language 4:30-57.
Klver, Ulrike 1982, Interaktion von nominalen Kategorien am Beispiel der Entwick-
lung des modernen Bengali. Seiler & Lehmann (eds.) 1982:244-251.
Klver, Ulrike 1982, Klassifikatorkonstruktionen in Thai, Vietnamesisch und Chine-
sisch. Ein Beitrag zur Dimension der Apprehension. Seiler & Lehmann (eds.)
1982: 180-185.
Klver, Ulrike 1985, Kasusrelationen im Birmanischen. Plank, F. (ed.), Relational
typology. Berlin etc.: Mouton (Trends in Linguistics, 28); 195-212.
Krahe, Hans 1967, Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Bd. II: Formenlehre. Berlin: W.
de Gruyter (Sammlung-Grschen, 780). 6. ed.
Kuno, Susumu 1973, The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press (Current Studies in Linguistics Series, 3).
Kuryowicz, Jerzy 1948, Contributions la thorie de la syllabe. Bulletin de la Socit
Polonaise de Linguistique 8:80-114.
Kuryowicz, Jerzy 1965, The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 51:55-71.
Reprint: Kuryowicz, J. 1975, Esquisses linguistiques II. Mnchen: W. Fink
(International Library of General Linguistics, 37); 38-54.
Labov, William 1971, On the adequacy of natural languages: I. The development of
tense. First draft, Febr. 20, 1971. Univ. of Pennsylvania: Trier: LAUT, B23, 1977.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977, Syntactic reanalysis. Li (ed.) 1977:57-139.
Lehmann, Christian 1974, Isomorphismus im sprachlichen Zeichen. Seiler, H. (ed.)

1974, Linguistic Workshop II. Arbeiten des Klner Universalienprojekts 1973/74.
Mnchen: W. Fink; 98-123.
Lehmann, Christian 1978, On measuring semantic complexity. A contribution to a
rapprochement of semantics and statistical linguistics. Georgetown University
Papers on Languages and Linguistics 14:83-120.
Lehmann, Christian 1982, Nominalisierung Typisierung von Propositionen. Seiler
& Lehmann (eds.) 1982:64-82.
Lehmann, Christian 1982, Universal and typological aspects of agreement. Seiler, H.
& Stachowiak, F.J. (eds.), Apprehension. Vol. II. Tbingen: G. Narr; 201-267.
Lehmann, Christian 1983, Rektion und syntaktische Relationen. Folia Linguistica
17:339-378.
Lehmann, Christian 1984, Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen Theorie
seiner Funktionen Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tbingen: G. Narr (LUS, 3).
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1975, Word order and word order change. Austin & London:
University of Texas Press.
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977, Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin & London:
University of Texas Press.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1974, Historical change of word-order: a case
study in Chinese and its implications. Anderson, J.M. & Jones, Ch. (eds.),
Historical Linguistics. Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh 2nd-7th Sept. 1973. Vol. I. Amsterdam &
Oxford: North-Holland, New York: American Elsevier; 199-217.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1976, Subject and topic: a new typology of
languages. Li, Ch. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York etc.: Academic Press;
457-489.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1977, A mechanism for the development of
copula morphemes. Li (ed.) 1977:419-444.
Lightfoot, David W. 1979, Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: University Press
(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 23).
Lord, Carol 1976, Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in
Kwa. Steever, S.B. & Walker, C.A. & Mufwene, S.S. (eds.), Papers from the
parasession on diachronic syntax. April 22, 1976. Chicago: CLS; 179-191.
Lyons, John 1968, Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.
Lyons, John 1977, Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Malkiel, Yakov 1957f, Diachronic hypercharacterization in Romance. Archivum
Linguisticum 9:79-113; 10:1-36.
Mallinson, Graham & Blake, Barry J. 1981, Language typology. Cross-linguistic studies
in syntax. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland (North-Holland Linguistic Series, 46).
Martinet, Andr (ed.) 1968, Le langage. Paris: Gallimard (Encyclopdie de la Pliade,
25).
Matthews, Peter H. 1981, Syntax. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics).
Indices 168
Meillet, Antoine 1912, L'volution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di

Scienza) 12(26):6. Reprint: Meillet 1921:130-148.
Meillet, Antoine 1915, Le renouvellement des conjonctions. Annuaire de l'cole
Pratique des Hautes tudes, section historique et philologique. Reprint: Meillet
1921:159-174.
Meillet, Antoine 1921/1936, Linguistique historique et linguistique gnrale. 2 vols.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Meillet, Antoine 1934, Introduction l'tude des langues indo-europennes. Paris:
Hachette. 7. Aufl.; 1.:1903; 8. unvernd. Aufl.: 1937.
Meinhof, Carl 1936, Die Entstehung flektierender Sprachen. Berlin: D. Reimer.
Mel'uk, Igor A. 1976, On suppletion. Linguistics 170:45-90.
Merlan, Francesca 1982, Mangarayi. Amsterdam: North Holland (LDS, 4).
Misteli, Franz 1893, Charakeristik der hauptschlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues.
Neubearbeitung des Werkes von Prof. H. Steinthal (1861). Berlin: F. Dmmler.
Moinfar, Moh. Djafar 1980, Les classificateurs en persan. Brettschneider & Lehmann
(eds.) 1980:317-320.
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1980, Some crosslinguistic generalizations about motivated
symbolism. Brettschneider & Lehmann (eds.) 1980:23-28.
Mosel, Ulrike 1980, Tolai and Tok Pisin. The influence of the substratum on the
development of New Guinea Pidgin. Canberra: Australian National University
(Pacific Linguistics, Series B, 73).
Paul, Hermann 1920, Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tbingen: M. Niemeyer. 5. ed.
Plank, Frans 1979, Exklusivierung, Reflexivierung, Identifizierung, relationale
Auszeichnung. Variationen zu einem semantisch-pragmatischen Thema. Rosen-
gren, I. (ed.), Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1978. Lund: CWK
Gleerup; 330-354.
Plank, Frans 1979, The functional basis of case systems and declension classes: from
Latin to Old French. Linguistics n.s. 17:611-640.
Polom, Edgar C. 1967, Swahili language handbook. Washington: Center for Applied
linguistics (Language Handbook Series).
Pulgram, Ernst 1978, Italic, Latin, Italian. 600 B.C. to A.D. 1260. Texts and
commentaries. Heidelberg: C. Winter (Indogermanische Bibliothek, 1. Reihe).
Qvonje, JNrn Ivar 1979, Die Grammatikalisierung der Prposition na im Bulgari-
schen. Folia Linguistica Historica 1:317-351.
Ramat, Paolo 1980, Introduzione alla linguistica germanica. Bologna: Ptron (Linguisti-
ca Generale e Storica, 16).
Ramat, Paolo 1983, Ein Beispiel von Reanalysis, typologisch betrachtet. Folia
Linguistica 16:365-383.
Reid, Aileen A. et al. 1968, Totonac: From clause to discourse. Norman: SIL of the
University of Oklahoma.
Rix, Helmut 1976, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke 1980, Sprachverwendung Sprachsystem. konomie und

Wandel. Tbingen: M. Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten, 87).
Rosn, Haiim B. 1980, Weiteres ber die Entstehung der periphrastischen Perfekt-
formen im Lateinischen. Zum Begriff Zustand des Akt(resultats)besitzes.
Ross, John R. 1973, The penthouse principle and the order of constituents. Corum et
al. (eds.), You take the high node and I'll take the low node. Papers from the
Comparative Syntax Festival. Chicago: CLS; 397-422.
Sankoff, Gillian 1977, Variability and explanation in language and culture: cliticization
in New Guinea Tok Pisin. Saville-Troike, M. (ed.), Linguistics and anthropology.
Washington: Georgetown University Press (GURTLL 1977); 59-73.
Sankoff, Gillian & Laberge, Suzanne 1974, On the acquisition of native speakers by a
language. DeCamp, D. & Hancock, J.F. (eds.), Pidgins and creoles. Current
trends and prospects. Washington: Georgetown University Press; 73-84.
Sapir, Edward 1921, Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Sasse, Hans-Jrgen 1977, Gedanken ber Wortstellungsvernderung. Papiere zur
Linguistik 13f:82-142.
Sasse, Hans-Jrgen 1977, A note on wh-movement. Lingua 41:343-354.
Saussure, Ferdinand de 1916, Cours de linguistique gnrale, publi par Charles Bally
... Paris: Payot.
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von 1818, Observations sur la langue et la littrature
provenales. Paris: Librairie grecque-latine-allemande.
Seebold, Elmar 1971, Versuch ber die Herkunft der indogermanischen Personalen-
dungssysteme. Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 85:185-210.
Seiler, Hansjakob 1973, On the semantosyntactic configuration possessor of an act.
Kachru, Braj B. et al. (eds.), Issues in linguistics. Papers in honor of Henry and
Rene Kahane. Urbana etc.: University of Illinois Press; 836-853.
Seiler, Hansjakob 1975, Die Prinzipien der deskriptiven und der etikettierenden Benen-
nung. Seiler, H. (ed.), Linguistic workshop III. Arbeiten des Klner
Universalienprojekts 1974. Mnchen: W. Fink; 2-57.
Seiler, Hansjakob 1978, The Cologne project on language universals: Questions,
objectives, and prospects. Seiler (ed.) 1978:11-25.
Seiler, Hansjakob 1983, POSSESSION as an operational dimension of language. Tbin-
gen: G. Narr (LUS, 2).
Seiler, Hansjakob 1982, Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstnden (Apprehension).
Seiler & Lehmann (eds.) 1982:3-11.
Seiler, Hansjakob (ed.) 1978, Language universals. Papers from the Conference held at
Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, October 3-8, 1976. Tbingen: G. Narr (TBL,
111).
Seiler, Hansjakob & Lehmann, Christian (eds.) 1982, Apprehension. Das sprachliche
Erfassen von Gegenstnden. Teil I: Bereich und Ordnung der Phnomene. Tbin-
gen: G. Narr (LUS, 1, I).
Indices 170
Serzisko, Fritz 1980, Sprachen mit Zahlklassifikatoren: Analyse und Vergleich. Kln:
Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt (akup, 37).
Serzisko, Fritz 1981, Gender, noun class and numeral classification: a scale of
classificatory techniques. Kln: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt
(akup, 40:93-126).
Serzisko, Fritz 1982, Temporre Klassifikation. Ihre Variationsbreite in Sprachen mit
Zahlklassifikatoren. Seiler & Lehmann (eds.) 1982:147-159.
Stammerjohann, Harro (ed.) 1975, Handbuch der Linguistik. Allgemeine und angewand-
te Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; Mnchen:
Nymphenburg.
Starke, Frank 1977, Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Adverbien im
Althethitischen. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz (StBoT, 23).
Steele, Susan 1978, Word order variation: a typological study. Greenberg (ed.) 1978,
4:585-624.
Strunk, Klaus 1980, Zum indogermanischen Medium und konkurrierenden Kategori-
en. Brettschneider & Lehmann (eds.) 1980:321-337.
Syromjatnikov, N.A. 1980, Zakonomernosti razvitija linych mestoimenij v
novojaponskom jazyke. Vardul' (ed.) 1980:104-126.
Szemernyi, Oswald J.L. 1970, Einfhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (Die Altertumswissenschaft).
Tauli, Valter 1966, Structural tendencies in Uralic languages. The Hague etc.: Mouton
(Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, 17).
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1980, Meaning-change in the development of grammatical
markers. Language Sciences 2:44-61.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. et al. (eds.) 1980, Papers from the 4th International Conference
on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory, 14).
Troike, Rudolph C. 1981, Subject-object concord in Coahuilteco. Language 57:658-
673.
Ultan, Russell 1978, On the development of a definite article. Seiler (ed.) 1978:249-
266.
Ultan, Russell 1978, The nature of future tenses. Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 3:83-123.
Van Roey, Jacques 1974, A contrastive description of English and Dutch noun phrases.
Bruxelles: AIMAV; Paris: Didier.
Vardul', Igor F. (ed.) 1980, Teoria i tipologija mestoimenij. Moskva: Nauka.
Vater, Heinz 1979, Determinantien. Teil I: Abgrenzung, Syntax. Trier: LAUT (KLAGE,
6).
Vincent, Nigel 1980, Some issues in the theory of word order. York Papers in
Linguistics 8:167-179.
Vincent, Nigel 1980, Iconic and symbolic aspects of syntax: Prospects for
reconstruction. Ramat, P. et al. (eds.), Linguistic reconstruction and Indo-
European syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of the 'Indogermanische
Gesellschaft', University of Pavia, 6-7 September 1979. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins;

47-68.
Wackernagel, Jakob 1920/1924, Vorlesungen ber Syntax, mit besonderer Berck-
sichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch. 2 vols. Basel: Philologisches
Seminar der Universitt. In Kommission Birkhuser & Co.
Weinreich, Uriel 1963, On the semantic structure of language. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.),
Universals of language. Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York,
April 13-15, 1961. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2. ed. 1966; 114-171.
Welmers, William E. 1973, African language structures. Berkeley etc.: University of
California Press.
Wendt, Heinz F. 1972, Langenscheidts Praktisches Lehrbuch Trkisch. Berlin etc.:
Langenscheidt.
Werner, Otmar 1979, Kongruenz wird zu Diskontinuitt im Deutschen. Brogyanyi, B.
(ed.), Festschrift for Oswald Szemernyi on the occasion of his 65th birthday.
Amsterdam: J. Benjamins; 959-988.
Wiesemann, Ursula 1980, Events and non-events in Kaingng discourse. Brett-
schneider & Lehmann (eds.) 1980:419-433.
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1977, Greenlandic Eskimo, ergativity, and relational grammar.
Cole, P. & Sadock, J.M. (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical
relations. New York etc.: Academic Press; 307-336.
irmunskij, V. M. 1966, The word and its boundaries. Linguistics 27:65-91.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1978, Arguing for constituency. Papers from the Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 14:503-512.

Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts On Grammaticalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts On Grammaticalization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts On Grammaticalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSIDUE

Arbeitspapiere des Seminars fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Erfurt

Second, revised edition

Erfurt Seminar fr Sprachwissenschaft

bei den Autoren

Second, revised edition

Preface to the draft version vii

Preface to the published edition ix

1. The history of research in grammaticalization 1

3.3. Nominal complexes 50

4. Parameters of grammaticalization 108

6. Traditional problems in new perspective

8. Language history and linguistic evolution

Preface to the draft version

Cologne, 7.10.1982 Christian Lehmann

Preface to the published edition

Bielefeld, 21.07.1995 Christian Lehmann

Erfurt, 08.07.2002 Christian Lehmann

Lehmann, Christian 2002, "New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization."

I. grammatische Bezeichnung durch Redensarten, Phrasen, Stze:

between those concepts which are grammaticalized and consequently obligatory in

Benveniste, who, curiously enough, consistently avoids the term grammaticalization,

2.1. The term grammaticalization

2.2. The meaning of grammaticalization

F1. The phases of grammaticalization

2.4. Renovation and innovation

substituted by new forms entering at its beginning. For degrammaticalization to obtain,

3.1. Verbal complexes

3.1.1. Existence and possession

3.1.2. The copula

3.1.3. Modals and moods

3.1.4. Tense and aspect

European) and est trabalhando (stand:3.SG work:ing, Brazilian). Colloquial German

he is playing (Hewitt 1979:181)

mere drinking was what I did

3.1.5. Passive and emphasis

3.1.6. Auxiliaries and alternative sources

Papua New Guineans eat sweet potatoes. (Mosel 1980:108)

he is/was still working (Mosel 1980:108)

he has/had/will have gone (Mosel 1980:123)

F2. Some interrelated grammaticalization channels of verbal categories

3.2. Pronominal elements

3.2.1. Definite pronominal elements

3.2.1.1. Definite determiners

3.2.1.2. Personal pronouns

E10. a. (sar) a-x/c'-k/ a-/q/'-k/ - rc

the boy's house

3.2.1.3. Reflexive pronouns

and I converse thus with myself (RV 7,86,2)

Do you want the tickets for yourself?

The child washed himself. (Wendt 1972 :156)

He hit himself hard with a stick. (Merlan 1982:135)

lli anaphan'setai khrmatizmenos

E21. a. On nous prie de s'adresser vous.

3.2.2. Indefinite pronominal elements

3.2.2.1. Interrogative pronouns

3.2.2.2. Indefinite pronouns

grammaticalizations have been little observed in the case of indefinite pronouns. I am

I want you to eat (something). (Misteli 1893:118)