1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Transcategorial morphemes share the common ability to be used synchronically across different syntactic categories (synchronic grammaticalization). This paper first shows that transcategoriality is a general property of linguistic systems, variously exploited by languages, then addresses the theoretical questions raised by these morphemes. A new model accounting for this transcategorial functioning, named “fractal grammar”, is proposed and illustrated by various examples. The analysis for this particular functioning relates the polysemy of these morphemes to their syntactic flexibility in a dynamic way: the variation of the syntactic scope of the morpheme (“fractal functioning”) is triggered by its environment and produces its polysemy (variation of the semantic scope). Fractal grammar is thus defined by two basic mechanisms: the construal of a common image-schema (“scale invariance”), accounting for the unity of the morpheme, and the activation of “scale (or level) properties”, accounting for the semantic and syntactic variations. A typological sketch of transcategoriality is then sketched, in relation to the strategies used by linguistic systems for the distribution of grammatical information. Three types of transcategorial strategies are distinguished: “oriented”, “generic”, and “functional” transcategoriality. The status of linguistic categories is then discussed in the light of the analysis of these particular morphemes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00015.rob
2018-08-30
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anward, J.
    (2000) A dynamic model of part-of-speech differentiation. In P. M. Vogel & B. Comrie (Eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes (pp.3–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110806120.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110806120.3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bottineau, D.
    (2003) Syntaxe génétique et typologie cognitive: la genèse des énoncés basque, anglais et japonais. Paper presented at 10ème Colloque International de Psychomécanique du Langage , Oloron-Sainte-Marie.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bril, I.
    (2003) Quantification, aspect et modalité : phénomènes de portée et d’échelle, quelques exemples en nêlêmwa. In S. Robert (Ed.), Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.53–68). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, J. , Perkins, R. , & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994) The evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J. , & Hopper, P.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  6. Craig, C.
    (1991) Ways to go in Rama: a case study in polygrammaticalisation. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp.455–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.2.20cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.20cra [Google Scholar]
  7. Croft, W.
    (1994) The semantics of subjecthood. In, M. Yaguello (Ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity. The status of the subject in linguistic theory (pp.29–76). Paris/London: Ophrys/Institut français du Royaume-Uni.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Culioli, A.
    (1990) Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, vol.1. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. F.
    (1988) The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 35–55.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  11. Frajzyngier, Z.
    (1996) Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence: A case study in Chadic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.32 [Google Scholar]
  12. Givón, T.
    (1975) Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In C. N. Li (Ed.). Word order and word order change, (pp.17–112). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gleick, J.
    (1991) La théorie du chaos. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions. A construction grammar. Approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Güldemann, T. , & von Roncador, M.
    (Eds.) (2002) Reported speech: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hagège, C.
    (1990) The dialogic species. A linguistic contribution to the social sciences. New-York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1993) The language builder: An essay on the human signature in linguistic morphogenesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.94
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.94 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haspelmath, M. & König, E.
    (Eds.) (1995) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms, adverbial participles, gerunds. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heine, B. , Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.
    (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heine, B.
    (1992) Grammaticalization chains. Studies in language, 16(2), 335–368.10.1075/sl.16.2.05hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16.2.05hei [Google Scholar]
  21. Heine, B. & Kilian-Hatz, C.
    (1994) Polysemy in African languages: An example from Baka. In T. Geider & R. Kastenholz (Eds.), Sprachen und Sprachzeugnisse in Afrika (pp.177–187). Köln: Rudiger Köppe.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–57.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp.17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  24. Hopper, P., & Traugott, E.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol.1. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1991) Cognitive Grammar. In F. G. Droste & J. E. Joseph , Linguistic theory and grammatical gescription (pp.275–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.75.10lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.75.10lan [Google Scholar]
  28. Lehmann, C.
    (1995) Thoughts on grammaticalization. München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lord, C.
    (1976) Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. Paper presented atChicago Linguistic Society. Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mandelbrot, B.
    (1975) Les Objets fractals, forme, hasard et dimension. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Meillet, A.
    (1912) L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia, 12(26). Reprinted in A. Meillet (1948), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp.130–148). Paris: Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Michaelis, L. A.
    (1996) Cross-world continuity, and the polysemy of adverbial Still . In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Space, worlds and grammar (pp.179–226). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Mithun, M.
    (2005) On the assumption of the sentence as the basic unit of syntactic structure. In Z. Frajzyngier , A. Hodges & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp.169–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.72.09mit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.09mit [Google Scholar]
  34. Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B.
    (1998) The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  35. Robert, S.
    (1997) From body to argumentation: grammaticalization as a fractal property of language (the case of Wolof ginnaaw). Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 116–127.10.3765/bls.v23i2.1308
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i2.1308 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1999) Cognitive invariants and linguistic variability: from units to utterance. In C. Fuchs & S. Robert (Eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations (pp.21–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.3.04rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.04rob [Google Scholar]
  37. (Ed.) (2003) Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques. Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. (2003a) Polygrammaticalisation, grammaire fractale et propriétés d’échelle. Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques. In S. Robert (Ed.), Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.85–120). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2003b) Vers une typologie de la transcatégorialité. In Robert, S. (Ed.) (2003) Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.255–270). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2005) The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorical functioning. In Z. Frajzyngier , A. Hodges & D. S. Rood (Eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (pp.119–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.72.07rob
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.72.07rob [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruelland, S.
    (1998) Je pense et je parle comme je suis: le corps, le monde et la parole en tupuri. Faits de langues, 11/12, 335–358.10.3406/flang.1998.1219
    https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1998.1219 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2003) Verbes, auxiliaires et déplacements dans l’espace en tupuri. In Robert, S. (Ed.) (2003) Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques (pp.127–148). Louvain: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sapoval, B.
    (1997) Universalité et fractales. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sweetser, E.
    (1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 389–409.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774 [Google Scholar]
  45. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Taylor, J. R.
    (1989) Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1986) What’s a noun? (or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?). Studies in Language, 10, 353–389.10.1075/sl.10.2.05wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.2.05wie [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00015.rob
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00015.rob
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): categorization , fractal grammar , grammaticalization , polycategoriality , polysemy and typology
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error