Introduction: conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems

Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 www.elsevier.com/locate/langsci Introduction: conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems Lyle Campbell a,*, Richard Janda b a Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand b Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Abstract The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the papers in this issue of Language Science, dedicated to taking stock of both grammaticalization and so-called ``grammaticalization theory'' (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). This introduction sets the stage for the other papers by surveying the large range of de®nitions of grammaticalization in the literature and placing them in context. It also mentions the major questions addressed by each paper and relates these to the overall themes of the volume, namely clarifying what grammaticalization is (and isn't), highlighting what's good and (in particular) what's bad about grammaticalization theory, and, in the process, contributing to greater understanding of these phenomena. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Grammaticalization; Language change; Typology; Grammaticalization theory 1. Background Does the veritable ¯ood of recent scholarship on grammaticalization correspond more closely to a ``Great Leap Forward'' or to ``The Emperor's New Clothes''? That is, does it constitute a momentous advance in linguistic understanding or rest on an unfortunate misunderstanding? While interest in grammaticalization phenomena has risen dramatically, over the last ten years or so, claims about grammaticalization have also come under increasing criticism from scholars (many of whom are cited in this volume). The * Corresponding author. 0388-0001/00/$ - see front matter 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 8 8 - 0 0 0 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 8 94 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 papers in this issue of Language Sciences take stock of this situation by subjecting grammaticalization to a critical evaluation. The goal of this collection is simple but extremely important: to present in one place a number of papers which carefully assess fundamental aspects of both grammaticalization and so-called ``grammaticalization theory'' (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). Because di€erent writers use the term ``grammaticalization'' in di€erent ways, without always identifying clearly (or at all) what is thereby intended, it is helpful to distinguish between grammaticalization phenomena (changes which lead to decreased lexical and/or increased grammatical status of items) and ``grammaticalization theory'' (the set of claims which have been made concerning such phenomena). It is hoped that these papers will serve to make linguists more aware of shortcomings in grammaticalization theory, to set the record straight concerning certain central claims, and to contribute to a fuller, more prudent understanding of the kinds of changes involved in grammaticalization and of the explanations which lie behind them. In short, these papers should clarify what grammaticalization is (and isn't), highlight what's good and (in particular) what's bad about grammaticalization theory, and, in the process, help foster a greater appreciation for empirical approaches to this general topic. 2. De®nitions In what follows, we present a survey of de®nitions of grammaticalization, proceeding chronologically. While most writers use the term ``grammaticalization'', some prefer ``grammaticization'', and Matiso€ (1991) even advocates the variant ``grammatization''. These terms are generally intended to refer to the same thing, with no meaning di€erence. In this volume, the more widely used ``grammaticalization'' is employed, for the most part Ð except that, when ``grammaticization'' appears in citations, it is repeated here without further comment. The de®nitions listed here are not exhaustive, but they are amply representative. Some of the more commonly encountered of these are, to a certain extent, the points of departure for several of the papers in this volume. Grouping the de®nitions together here in these introductory remarks provides both a sense of what is broadly common in thinking about grammaticalization and also a sense of the range and variation present in this domain. Thus, taken together, these de®nitions provide a satisfactorily representative introduction to the topic. While notions more or less consistent with grammaticalization have existed in linguistics since ancient times, at least since the ancient Hindu grammarians (cf. Campbell, 1995a, pp. 1147±1150, 1154±1155; Harris and Campbell, 1995, pp. 15± 25; Lehmann, 1982/1995, pp. 1±8, and Heine, in press)1, (Paul) Antoine Meillet 1 As Heine et al. (1991, p. 5) point out, ``the question as to the origin and development of grammatical categories is almost as old as linguistics,'' but they go on to say that ``this fact should not stop us, however, from viewing grammaticalization as a new paradigm.'' L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 95 (1912/1926) is credited with introducing the term ``grammaticalization'' (in the original French, grammaticalisation ). He characterized grammaticalization in the following terms (here in our translation Ð LC & RJ): [Besides analogy,] another process consists in the change of an autonomous word into the role of a grammatical element. . .. Th[is] . . .process . . .[, involving] the attribution of grammatical character to a formerly independent word . . .[, is one of] only [two] ways by means of which new grammatical constructs are formed (Meillet, 1921/1926, p. 131). The `grammaticalization' of certain words creates new forms, introduces categories that did not use to receive linguistic expression, [and] transforms the overall system (Meillet, 1912/1926/1926, p. 133). The frequent portrayal of grammaticalization as involving a concurrent ``weakening'' of both meaning and phonetic form, a characteristic which plays such an important role in later discussions, also began with Meillet (1926[1912], pp. 132, 139). For Meillet, grammaticalization was essentially lexical > grammatical, with the grammatical side of this development itself containing an internal sequence syntactic > morphological, so that the resulting overall cline was lexical > syntactic > morphological. This view remains a dominant one in the grammaticalization literature. Half a century later, Henry Hoenigswald (1963/1966, p. 44) described ``grammaticalization'' much as Meillet had earlier done: [A] typical notion . . .[is] `grammaticalization' Ð the emptying of lexically meaningful morphs (compound members, etc.) and their transformation into `function' elements . . .[Ðwhich,] at least in a minor way . . .[,] has served to build up forms that look like new in¯ections (e.g., the Romance adverbs in mente, from [Latin] mente `with (such and such) a mind'; the Osco-Umbrian locatives, with former enclitic adverbs intruding into the case system . . .[,] and so on) (Hoenigswald, 1963/1966, p. 44). Jerzy Kuryl/ owicz's (1965/1975, p. 52) de®nition is perhaps the one most commonly cited today (despite its arguably redundant and otherwise awkward phrasing): 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 derivati[onal] . . .formant to an in¯ectional one. Thus, for Kuryl/ owicz, grammaticalization is: lexical > grammatical and grammatical > more grammatical Ð or, more generally: any morpheme (lexical or grammatical ) > a more grammatical morpheme. Many linguists attribute the modern reawakening of interest in 96 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 grammaticalization to the reaction provoked by Talmy GivoÂn's (1971, p. 394) slogan that ``today's morphology is yesterday's syntax'', which appeared in a much-cited paper presented at an early meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS VII)2. His characterization of certain aspects of linguistic evolution is very similar to other scholars' later treatments of similar aspects of grammaticalization: Linguistic evolution is cyclic, involving . . . development from free lexemes to bound axes, which undergo attrition and eventually fusion with the stem, the result being the beginning of a new cycle (GivoÂn, 1971, pp. 411±412). M. L. Samuels (1972, p. 58), however, characterized grammaticalization in a manner reminiscent of Hoenigswald's de®nition: as ``consist[ing] of intake from lexis'' and occurring when a word becomes ``suciently empty of lexical meaning'' (also cited in Heine et al., 1991, p. 3). Langacker (1977) also did not speak of grammaticalization per se, but nevertheless gave a characterization for the kinds of grammatical change which includes the processes that other linguists have called ``grammaticalization'': It would not be entirely inappropriate to regard [each] language . . .in . . .[its] diachronic aspect as [a] gigantic expression-compacting machine. . . requir[ing] . . .as input a continuous ¯ow of creatively produced expressions formed by lexical innovation, . . .lexically and grammatically regular periphrasis, and . . .the ®gurative use of lexical or periphrastic locutions. The machine does whatever it can to wear down the expressions fed into it. It fades metaphors by standardizing them and using them over and over again . . .[,] attacks expressions of all kinds by phonetic erosion . . .[,] bleaches lexical items of most of their semantic content . . .[,] and forces them into service as grammatical markers. It chips away at the boundaries between elements and crushes them together into smaller units. The machine has a voracious appetite (Langacker, 1977, pp. 106±107). Christian Lehmann provided a more explicit de®nition in a work that was widely circulated in 1982, revised somewhat in 1985, but not published formally until 1995: 2 It is possible, though not necessarily the case, that GivoÂn's notion was inspired by Hodge's (1970, p. 3) statement that ``one man's morphology was an earlier man's syntax'' (cited in Heine et al., 1991, p. 263). It is also signi®cant that typologists like GivoÂn ®rst took up grammaticalization mainly as an aid to word-order reconstruction (assuming Ð unfortunately in error [cf., e.g., Steele, 1977] Ð that later, more morphological ax- and clitic-ordering always re¯ects earlier, more syntactic ordering of free words), and this at a time when ``typological reconstruction'' aÁ la W. Lehmann (1974) was very much in fashion (approximately up until the early 1980s, when responses such as Hawkins (1983), more or less gave it the coup de graÃce). It is probably not an accident that a considerable number of scholars now working within ``grammaticalization theory'' are typologists who have been grammatical(ization(al))ized. L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 97 [D]iachronic[ally,] . . . [grammaticalization] is a process which turns lexemes into grammatical formatives and renders grammatical formatives still more grammatical (Lehmann, 1982/1995, p. v). [G]rammaticalization. . . is a process which may not only change a lexical item into a grammatical item . . . but. . .also shift an item `from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status' . . . [,] in Kuryl/ owicz's [(1965/1975, p. 52)] words . . .[; g]rammaticalization is a process of gradual change . . .(Lehmann, 1982/1995, pp. 11±12). 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 (Lehmann, 1982/1995, p. x). C. Lehmann's work has had a strong in¯uence on the ®eld, especially on other scholars working in Germany, such Bernd Heine and his collaborators, and Martin Haspelmath. Heine and Reh (1984), for example, adopt the following de®nition: With the term `grammaticalization' we refer essentially to an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic signi®cance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance, respectively. This is the case for instance when a lexical item develops into a grammatical marker . . .[G]rammaticalization . . .consist[s] . . .of a number of basic processes . . .[but] is an evolutional continuum. An attempt at segmenting it into discrete units must remain arbitrary to some extent (Heine and Reh, 1984, p. 15). Much work in grammaticalization re¯ects their outlook, though Traugott (1988, p. 406) thinks that it portrays grammaticalization as ``a kind of impoverishment, or de®cit'' Ð or, in a later characterization (Traugott, 1995, p. 3), as a ``story of attrition and minimization''. She and others propose that pragmatic strengthening and sometimes semantic gain can occur in grammaticalization (more on this below). Much more commonly, however, it is the notions of semantic loss and phonetic reduction that play an important role in di€erent views (see both Campbell and Newmeyer, in this volume, for discussion). A rather di€erent and more controversial, though quite in¯uential, outlook came into the picture with Paul Hopper's (1987, p. 148) notion of ``emergent grammar'': ``There is, in other words, no `grammar', but only `grammaticalization' Ð movements towards structure.'' In Hopper's estimation, that is: the `Emergence of Grammar' . . . attitude . . . has come to view grammar as the name for a vaguely de®ned set of sedimented (i.e. grammaticized) `recurrent partials' whose status is constantly being renegotiated in speech and which 98 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 cannot be distinguished in principle from strategies for building discourses (Hopper, 1988, p. 118). (For discussion of this approach, see Campbell and Newmeyer, in this issue.) Elizabeth Closs Traugott's work on grammaticalization has also been extremely in¯uential. Her 1988 de®nition is: `Grammaticalization' . . . refers to the dynamic unidirectional historical process whereby lexical items in the course of time acquire a new status as grammatical, morphosyntactic forms (Traugott, 1988, p. 406; compare also Traugott and KoÈnig, 1991, p. 189). William Croft (1990) elaborates as follows on earlier discussions of grammaticalization, which he (along with several others) sees as a ``process'': Grammaticalization is the process by which full lexical items become grammatical morphemes . . .[It] is unidirectional and cyclic . . .: grammatical morphemes originate from lexical items, disappear through loss, and reappear when new words become grammatical morphemes. Phonological, morphosyntactic, and functional (semantic/pragmatic) changes are correlated: if a lexical item undergoes a certain kind of morphosyntactic change. . . [, this] implies corresponding functional and phonological changes. The pattern of correlated phonological, grammatical, and functional changes allows grammaticalization to be de®ned in a way that covers the evolution of virtually every type of grammatical morpheme, from tense in¯ection to case marker to complementizer (Croft, 1990, p. 230). [G]rammaticalization. . . [is a] psychological process . . .that . . .speakers undergo during the course of the history of the[ir] language (Croft, 1990, p. 257). Similarly, for Colette Craig (1991, p. 455) ```grammaticalization' is the evolutionary process by which grammatical morphemes arise''. In their in¯uential introduction to a jointly edited volume, Traugott and Heine (1991a, p. 2) advocate a broadened view of grammaticalization, referring to two related processes or kinds of grammaticalization: [1] changes of the lexical-item-togrammatical-morpheme sort, which can involve phonological reduction and can exhibit change of status from independent word to clitic or ax (lexical > grammatical ), and [2] changes of the discourse-structure-to-morphosyntacticmarking sort, which involve the fossilization of discourse strategies in syntactic and morphological structure ( pragmatic > grammatical ). They associate changes of both kinds with semantic bleaching and phonological reduction, further suggesting that the two types can be brought under a single rubric, as follows: lexical item used in discourse > [non-lexical item used in] morphosyntax (Traugott and Heine, 1991a, p. 5). On the other hand, Heine et al. (1991) again rely on Kuryl/ owicz's much earlier de®nition: L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 99 The by now classic de®nition of the term `grammaticalization' was provided by Kuryl/ owicz . . .[(1965/1975, p. 52)]: `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 derivati[onal]. . . formant to an in¯ectional one'. More or less the same de®nition has been used by other scholars and will be adopted here (Heine et al., 1991, p. 3). Analogous to GivoÂn's (1971) slogan that ``today's morphology is yesterday's syntax,'' Heine et al. o€er their own slogan Ð one which brings pragmatics more centrally into the grammaticalization picture: ``Today's syntax is yesterday's pragmatic discourse.'' They state: GivoÂn argued that, in the process of grammaticalization, a more pragmatic mode of communication gives way to a more syntactic one. According to this perspective, loose, paratactic discourse structures develop into closed syntactic structures. Since the latter in time erode via morphologization, lexicalization, and phonological attrition, the result is a cyclic wave of the following kind (. . . [cf.] GivoÂn 1979, pp. 208±209): Discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > zero . . .This line of research has opened a new window on grammaticalization studies, one that encourages a view of grammaticalization not simply as the `reanalysis of lexical as grammatical material' but also as the reanalysis of discourse patterns as grammatical patterns and of discourse-level functions as sentence-level, semantic functions (Heine et al., 1991, p. 13). As those three authors emphasize, this approach ``views grammaticalization as being located in discourse pragmatics . . .that is, as forming a concomitant feature, or an outcome, or even an inherent constituent . . . [,] of discourse pragmatic forces'' (Heine et al., 1991, p. 22). From Paul Hopper (1991) comes the following characterization: Certain types of lexical items are known typically to evolve into grammaticalized clitics and axes . . .The occurrence of certain lexical items in frequent collocations . . .may be prima facie evidence of incipient grammaticization (Hopper, 1991, p. 20). And, from Matiso€ (1991), we have: Grammatization is inherently a diachronic concept . . .refer[ring] to a historical semantic process whereby a `root-morpheme' with a full lexical meaning assumes a more abstract functorial or `grammatical' meaning. Such processes may take centuries to complete . . . (Matiso€, 1991, p. 384). In another in¯uential book-length study, Hopper and Traugott (1993) de®ne grammaticalization as follows: 100 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 Grammaticalization . . .is the process whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions. . . whereby the properties that distinguish sentences from vocabulary come into being diachronically or are organized synchronically (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p. xv). These two authors call grammaticalization a ``subdiscipline'', and they amplify their de®nition to include also the notion of grammaticalization as a framework: `Grammaticalization' as a term has two meanings. As a term referring to a framework within which to account for language phenomena, it refers to that part of the study of language which focuses on how grammatical forms and constructions arise, how they are used, and how they shape the language . . .It therefore highlights the tension between relatively unconstrained lexical structure and more constrained syntactic, morphosyntactic, and morphological structure . . .The term `grammaticalization' also refers to the actual phenomena of language that the framework of grammaticalization seeks to address, most especially the processes whereby items become more grammatical through time (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, pp. 1±2). Hopper and Traugott (1993) see one important aspect of grammaticalization as residing in changes of the sort that can be characterized as follows: ```use of lexical item in discourse > grammatical item' . . .i.e., in terms of form in utterance context'' (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p. 81). In a passage echoing Hopper's ``emergent grammar,'' they bring in a broader, more synchronic perspective on grammaticalization: Grammaticalization . . .studied from . . .[a historical] perspective . . . [involves] the sources of grammatical forms and the typical pathways of change that a€ect them . . .[, being] that subset of linguistic changes through which a lexical item in certain uses becomes a grammatical item, or . . .a grammatical item becomes more grammatical. The other perspective is more synchronic, seeing grammaticalization as primarily a syntactic, discourse pragmatic phenomenon . . .studied from the point of view of ¯uid patterns of language use (Hopper and Traugott, 1993, p. 2). Bybee et al. (1994) escalate studies of grammaticalization even further, elevating them to the status of a theory: Reduced to its essentials, grammaticalization theory begins with the observation that grammatical morphemes develop gradually out of lexical morphemes or combinations of lexical morphemes with lexical or grammatical morphemes . . .[. W]e do not restrict our interest in grammaticalization to the transition between lexical and grammatical status, but rather recognize the same diachronic processes at work in a long chain of developments. Included L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 101 are changes in lexical morphemes by which some few of them become more frequent and general in meaning, gradually shifting to grammatical status, and developing further after grammatical status has been attained (Bybee et al., 1994, pp. 4±5.) We do not take the structuralist position that each language represents a tidy system in which units are de®ned by the oppositions they enter into and the object of study is the internal system the units are supposed to create. Rather, we consider it more pro®table to view languages as composed of substance Ð both semantic substance and phonetic substance . . .[Ðwhich] is potentially universal, but languages di€er as to how it is shaped because it is constantly undergoing change as language is used (Bybee et al., 1994, p. 1). For them, ``grammaticalization theory'' embodies eight hypotheses, which seem to function, not only as hypotheses, but also as diagnostic traits of grammaticalization (cf. Bybee et al, 1994, pp. 9±22): 1. Source determination. The actual meaning of a construction that enters into grammaticalization uniquely determines the path which such grammaticalization follows, and consequently the resulting grammatical meanings. 2. Unidirectionality. The path taken by grammaticalization is always from less grammatical to more grammatical. 3. Universal paths. From [1] and [2] (or perhaps from [1] aloneÐ?!), it follows that there are universal paths of grammaticalization. 4. Retention of earlier meaning. Semantic nuances of a source construction can be retained long after grammaticalization has begun. 5. Consequences of semantic retention. From [3] and [4], it follows that attested forms can be used (in order to attempt) to reconstruct earlier stages of a language. 6. Semantic reduction and phonological reduction. Semantic reduction is paralleled by phonetic reduction, this yielding a ``dynamic coevolution of meaning and form'' (p. 20). 7. Layering. The rise of new markers is not contingent on the loss or dysfunction of its predecessors. 8. Relevance. The more semantically relevant a grammatical category is to a stem, the more likely it is that it will develop into an ax. Most of these hypotheses play a role in the claims about grammaticalization which are evaluated in various papers in this volume. Responding to this groundswell of interest in grammaticalization by discussing related phenomena at length in her introductory survey of language change, April McMahon (1994, p. 69) reports that ``the process . . .[in question involves the] morphologization of syntactic elements''; she clari®es this statement as follows: [W]ords from major lexical categories, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, 102 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 become [members of] minor, grammatical categories such as prepositions, adverbs and auxiliaries, which in turn may be[come] . . .axes. Full words, with their own lexical content, thus become form words, which simply mark a particular construction; . . . this categorial change tends to be accompanied by a reduction in phonological form and a bleaching of meaning. Thus, grammaticalization is not only a syntactic change, but a global change a€ecting also the morphology, phonology and semantics (McMahon, 1994, p. 160). William Pagliuca's (1994) version of a de®nition for our general topic is: [G]rammaticalization. . . may be de®ned as the evolution of grammatical form and meaning from lexical and phrasal antecedents and the continued formal and semantic developments such material subsequently undergoes. The . . . lexical sources of particular grammatical forms. . .[undergo] formal and semantic changes which characterize their developmental histories . . . (Pagliuca, 1994, p. ix). The cross-linguistic regularity of the descent of given grammatical meanings from particular and speci®able precursors suggests that grammatical material is the product of phenomena which are both universal and unidirectional . . .[U]nderstanding . . . these . . .mech anisms of diachronic change. . .[will] advance . . . diachronic theory and method in scope and power . . .[as they] come to be routinely and pro®tably applied to the internal and comparative reconstruction of grammatical meaning . . . Precisely how grammatical material arises from the non-grammatical, and how it continues to evolve semantically and formally, may be seen as the broad issues . . .(Pagliuca, 1994, pp. ix±x). Elizabeth Closs Traugott's (1994) de®nition is the following: Grammaticalization is the linguistic process whereby grammatical categories such as case or tense/aspect are organized and coded. Typical examples involve a lexical item, construction, or morpheme . . .that, when used in certain highly speci®c frames, may come to code an abstract grammatical category . . .From the diachronic perspective, grammaticalization is usually thought of as that subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item used in speci®c discourse contexts becomes a grammatical item, or whereby a grammatical item becomes more grammatical . . . (Traugott, 1994, pp. 1481). In Kai von Fintel's (1995) de®nition, the diachronic±semantic aspect is particularly prominent: Grammaticalization is the gradual historical development of function morphemes from content morphemes. Among the most commonly identi®ed characteristics of this process is what is often called `semantic bleaching': while 103 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 becoming more and more functional . . . [, a] morpheme loses most of its meaning. (von Fintel, 1995, p. 175). Traugott's (1995, pp. 1±2) de®nition holds that ``grammaticalization is the process whereby lexical material in highly constrained pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical'' (though `` . . .[o]thers have tended to equate grammaticalization with increased morphosyntactic bonding'' [Traugott, 1995/in press, p. 3]). Joan Bybee (1996), on the other hand, o€ers this characterization: The vast majority of axes in the languages of the world evolve from independent words by the gradual process of `grammaticization' or `grammaticalization' . . . In the progression from a lexical morpheme to a grammatical one, changes occur in the phonological shape of the morpheme, its meaning and its grammatical behavior . . .The process of grammaticization is not discrete, but continuous . . .[;] in the form of semantic change and further phonological reduction and fusion. . .[, it] continues even after grammatical status is achieved, and even after axation occurs (Bybee, 1996, pp. 253±255). In the same year as Bybee's above-mentioned paper was published, extensive discussions of grammaticalization began to appear more widely in introductory texts on historical linguistics (expanding on the already-cited start made by McMahon, 1994). Here, we extract a de®nition from such a work by R. L. Trask: . . .[One] pathway of syntactic change . . .[is] grammaticalization . . .[:] lexical items can be reduced to bound morphemes, but they can also be reduced to grammatical items without entirely losing their status as words (Trask, 1996, p. 143; original emphasis). In a less introductory study focused more centrally on grammaticalization phenomena, Bernd Heine (1997, p. 6) talks of ``the paradigm of grammaticalization theory'' (though his de®nition is more customary): By grammaticalization we mean a process whereby a linguistic expression E, in addition to its conventional meaning M1, receives a more abstract and more grammatical meaning M2''). Roger Lass' discussion of grammaticalization in his most recent book on historical linguistic concerns includes the following observations: [G]rammaticalized'=`routinized, bleached, grammatical status' (Lass, 1997, p. 256n.38). downgraded from lexical to Recent work on grammaticalization . . .suggests the existence of genuine directional pathways in morphosyntactic change, some even with good selections of intermediate stages. A classic example of a directional morphocline 104 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 is the familiar sequence Noun > Preposition > Clitic > Case-ending . . .There are also other apparently (virtually) unidirectional pathways, e.g. Free Morph > Bound Morph, more generally Lexical Category > Grammatical Category, Less Grammatical Category > More Grammatical Category, etc. (Lass, 1997, pp. 267±268). Each step along . . . [such a] pathway seems irreversible or nearly so; once a noun has become a postposition . . .[,] it can't become a noun again, [nor can] a case-marker . . .detach itself and become a postposition . . . Developments of this kind can be construed as paths along a chreod [(```gutter' or. . . preset path'')] leading to a point-attractor; each stage gets ``closer'' to the sink, which is a bound morph. And once this stage is reached, there is generally no way of emerging from it (Lass, 1997, pp. 295±296). At approximately the same time as Lass's book appeared, grammaticalization enjoyed a bonanza in introductory textbooks, receiving prominent mention in a historical-linguistics text, an overview of typology, and a German-language introduction to grammaticalization entirely devoted to that subject. The de®nitions here are from Terry Crowley, Lindsay Whaley, and Gabriele Diewald, respectively: Words in languages can often change from being lexical words to . . .[being] grammatical words. This process is referred to as grammaticalization. . . .[T]he next step . . . [involves] the development of a bound form out of what was originally a free form (Crowley, 1997, p. 145; original emphasis). [Grammaticalization is a] . . .process of language change by which a free lexical morpheme becomes semantically generalized and phonologically reduced (Whaley, 1997, p. 285). . . .Grammaticalization . . .[, t]he transition of a lexical, autonomous form to a grammatical, non-independent form . . .[,] does not happen suddenly and abruptly. It is a process which extends over very long spans of time and represents a ¯owing, evolutive change, so that it is not possible to specify one particular point of the [relevant] historical development as the time after which, e.g.,. . .[a former main verb] would have to be characterized unambiguously as a temporal auxiliary. The change concerns both the content- and the expression-side of signs, whereby it begins on the content-side and is at ®rst not formally visible (Diewald, 1997, p. 11; our translation Ð LC & RJ). The de®nition in Aya Katz' (1998) grammaticalization-focused article is consonant with most of those listed here so far, though she also brings iconicity into the picture: Grammaticalization is a process whereby independent linguistic units are recruited into grammatical paradigms or into systems that form as a result of L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 105 this recruitment . . .[; s]uch . . .units may be lexemes, phrases, or even larger units . . . (Katz, 1998, p. 93). The process of grammaticalization is a constant force that drives language onward, and it can account for all change that moves from iconicity to formalism (Katz, 1998, p. 95). In other recent de®nitions, we can recognize further ampli®cations of the general notions considered so far. Anna Giacalone Ramat (1998, p. 107) reports that ``over the last years . . .[,] the conviction has emerged that grammaticalization is not a uniform process.'' Livio Gaeta (1998, p. 89) believes the basic de®nition should be modi®ed from Meillet's original characterization: ``grammaticalization, in its broader meaning, has to do with the whole range of phenomena that give rise to grammatical formatives, not merely with those originating from lexical forms [original emphasis].'' For Juan Moreno Cabrera (1998, pp. 213, 214), ``grammaticalization processes depart from the lexicon and proceed towards the syntax . . .''; hence they can be ``characterize[d] . . .as syntactotelic or syntaxcreating processes'': i.e., grammaticalization ``feeds the syntax and bleeds the lexicon''. Martin Haspelmath's (1998, p. 78) de®nition is recognizably reminiscent of earlier views: Grammaticalization . . .[is] the gradual unidirectional change that turns lexical items into grammatical items and loose structures into tight structures, subjecting frequent linguistic units to more and more grammatical restrictions and reducing their autonomy. However, his approach includes much more than the other de®nitions above; compare also his most recent (forthcoming) remarks on the subject in the second citation immediately below: Grammaticalization is the gradual drift in all parts of the grammar towards tighter structures, towards less freedom in the use of linguistic expression at all levels. Speci®cally, lexical items develop into grammatical items in particular constructions, which often means that independent words turn into clitics and axes. In addition, constructions become subject to stronger constraints and come to show greater cohesion. Grammaticalization is unidirectional in that elements and structures always become more grammatical(ized), while the reverse (development of less grammatical from more grammatical structures or elements) is practically unattested. Grammaticalization comprises the development of simple sentences from complex sentences, the development of function words from content words, [and] the development of axes from function words . . . [. T]hese changes can be understood as resulting from the gradual loss of autonomy of linguistic signs (Haspelmath, 1998, p. 52). The most general de®nition of grammaticalization would therefore not restrict 106 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 this notion to changes from a lexical category to a functional category but would say that grammaticalization shifts a linguistic expression further toward the functional pole of the lexical-functional continuum. (Haspelmath, 1999, p. 1045). Rounding out the present panorama of de®nitions for grammaticalization are the two in the following pair, one from Heine (in press) and one from Traugott (in press): [G]rammaticalization. . . [includes but] is not con®ned to the evolution of lexical items . . .. [Following a suggestion by] Traugott . . .[, we can] de®ne grammaticalization `as the development of constructions (not bare lexical items, as has often been supposed in the past) via discourse practices into more grammatical material' . . .. (Heine, in press, p. 4). [T]he focus of most de®nitions of grammaticalization in the linguistic literature has been on lexemes. . . and, in later stages, [on] the grammaticalization of already grammatical items into more grammatical ones. . .. [But] increasing attention has recently been paid to the fact that . . .lexemes grammaticalize only in certain highly speci®able contexts, and under speci®able pragmatic conditions . . .[. T]he focus is on . . .the contexts in which . . .[lexemes] take on grammatical functions. . . [, in t]he present paper . . .. (Traugott, in press, p. 1). It is probably ®tting to conclude this survey of de®nitions for grammaticalization with Paul Hopper's (1998, pp. 147±148) recent representation of the relevant phenomena as an allegory in which souls are saved:3 Grammaticalization can be thought of as a salvation narrative. It is the tragedy of lexical items young and pure in heart but carrying within them the fatal ¯aw of original sin; their inexorable weakening as they encounter the corrupt world of Discourse; their fall into the Slough of Grammar; and their eventual redemption in the cleansing waters of Pragmatics. To summarize the various de®nitions surveyed above, we might conclude that there is a prototypical or core notion of how grammaticalization is understood (cf. Hopper, 1998, p. 148, on ``canonical grammaticalization''). But, as Lessau (1994, p. 416) points out, since the time of Meillet, there has been ``a broadening of the 3 With its invocation of (unspeci®ed) original sin leading ®rst to grammatical(izing) decay and death but then ultimately to redemption via pragmatic rebirth, Hopper's (1998) salvational allegory follows what must be considered a ®rmly Christian, even Roman Catholic theology. In Joseph and Janda (1988, p. 204), however, another religious allegory was earlier adopted which features what is essentially a Buddhist perspective: ``It is not as if syntax ®rst decays into morphology, and morphology then decays into nothing and thereby dies. Morphology is not a graveyard. Instead, it is more as if syntax feeds morphology, while morphology itself undergoes (greater) lexicalization which, for speakers of the world's languages, does not apparently resemble death so much as nirvana.'' L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 107 scope of studies related to grammaticalization'', paralleled by ``the term experienc[ing] a considerable extension into various directions'' Ð so that, `` . . .[a]s a consequence, it is not easy to ®nd a general de®nition, a common denominator, for the various contents and applications `grammaticalization' has today.'' (See Giacalone Ramat & Hopper, 1998, pp. 7±8, for discussion.) Nevertheless, we are left with a notion of grammaticalization which minimally includes, at its core: some linguistic element > some more grammatical element. 3. Overview The papers of this volume were written relatively independently of one another Ð each representing the views of its individual author Ð and are principally united only by the fact that each addresses, in relation to particular linguistic examples, certain major limitations of grammaticalization theory4. Each of these studies can stand alone, and therefore, in some instances, two or more papers discuss the same or similar subjects, though always from each individual author's distinct perspective. Where more than one work addresses a particular theme, this fact should serve to underscore how important the point at stake is. For example, several of the papers are, in one way or another, critical of the ``unidirectionality claim'' (the suggestion Ð now verging on dogma Ð that, in grammaticalization, linguistic elements always become more grammatical, never less grammatical; recall hypothesis [2] above, from Bybee et al., 1994). Yet each of the present studies o€ers unique and valuable insights concerning this hypothesis. Several of the papers utilize extensive quotations from the grammaticalization literature as an expository device for allowing other writers' voices to be heard in their own words. Since much discussion deals directly with how speci®c terms are de®ned, this device is not only useful but also important for clarity's sake. Also to be noted is the range of di€erent opinions to be found in the various papers. On the one hand, for example, Norde discusses ``degrammaticalization'' from a vantage point slightly di€erent from that of the other authors. Janda, on the other hand, is less peremptorily dismissive about a possible role for children's language acquisition in grammatical change than many typologists would be (for a di€erent view, see Campbell, 1995b), though he much more strongly emphasizes the importance of discontinuity across generations (both in youth and in adulthood) for any grammaticalization process analyzed as occurring over hundreds of years. Additionally represented in these papers are new views concerning many aspects of grammaticalization, of which we here mention just a small number of examples. Norde, for example, discusses how the notion (and phenomenon) of ``de¯exion'' counters certain grammaticalization-related claims, and she also 4 Limitations of grammaticalization were not at all a central focus, as might have been expected, in The Limits of Grammaticalization (Giacalone Ramat and Hopper, Eds., 1998). 108 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 emphasizes the socio-cultural context of overall grammar, arguing that grammaticalization changes must be understood in the context of a grammar's history as a whole. This perspective brings socio-cultural factors and the longrange diachrony of language systems into the picture (yet in a manner appreciably di€erent from what is characteristic of most grammaticalization theorists), thereby raising important issues for any approach that intends to illuminate linguistic change in general and grammaticalization changes in particular. Newmeyer, in turn, addresses the question of whether grammaticalization theory has any negative implications for generative grammar, concluding that it does not, while Joseph scrutinizes claims that grammaticalization is a ``process'' and tests diachronic grammaticalization-based claims regarding the so-called Pro-Drop parameter. Janda, on the other hand, emphasizes sociolinguistic factors Ð the external contexts of grammaticalization Ð which rarely play a role in the extensive grammaticalization literature, even though, again, they appear to be crucial for understanding most linguistic change, including grammaticalization(s). He also stresses most emphatically the crucial need to focus on the perspective of individual speakers, as well as addressing the issue of how extremely long-term trends in grammars (and, through them, languages) can be replicated through the actions of mortal speakers. On the whole, however, if there is a uni®ed ``punch-line'' to this group of papers Ð that is, if it were necessary to extract a single ``sound-bite'' in order to represent them all collectively Ð it would have to run along these lines: ```Grammaticalization theory' is seriously ¯awed and misleading, as well as, arguably, totally super¯uous, since existing mechanisms already suce to account for the phenomena at issue; what we need, instead, is a deepening and broadening of knowledge, not the inappropriate and erroneous claims surrounding this putatively new and qualitatively unique conceptual apparatus''. Major issues raised (and, in some cases, answered) in these papers include the following thirteen questions (among which question (10) is discussed at some length): 1. What mechanisms underlie grammaticalization? What is the role of reanalysis, metaphor, and extension Ð i.e., analogy? (This is addressed by Campbell, Newmeyer, and Joseph, in this issue). 2. Is grammaticalization unidirectional? Does it even make sense to ask such a question (or to address answers to it)? (This question is addressed by all the papers in this volume.) Is the direction of grammaticalization changes irreversible? Can it at least be countered (undone) in some way? (This last question is a particular focus of Janda's paper in this volume.) If there is a typical directionality characteristic of (many) grammaticalization changes, what explains it? (See Campbell, Janda, and Norde, in this issue). 3. Does grammaticalization have explanatory value (which would give it theoretical standing on its own), as several scholars have claimed, or is it L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 109 explained by already well-known principles of linguistic change, such as sound change, lexical and semantic change, or reanalysis (as claimed by some questioners of grammaticalization)? (See Campbell, 1998, pp. 241±242, as well as Campbell, Janda, Joseph, and Newmeyer, in this issue). 4. Does grammaticalization have any independent status of its own, or is it totally derivative? (See the Campbell, Janda, Joseph, and Newmeyer papers in this issue). 5. Is grammaticalization necessary? If it has no theoretical status of its own, does it at least have a heuristic role to play? (These issues are addressed in passing by most of the papers in this issue). 6. What is the proper role of ``semantic bleaching'' (loss) and ``phonetic reduction'' vis-aÁ-vis each other in grammaticalization phenomena, and how is it (are they) to be explained? (See Campbell, this issue). 7. What are ``degrammaticalization'' and ``lexicalization'', and how do they relate to the unidirectionality claim? What impact does the existence of ``lateral conversions'' and ``de¯exion'' have on grammaticalization claims? (See Campbell, Janda, Newmeyer, and Norde, in this issue, for discussion). 8. Is grammaticalization a process, and what does it mean to claim that it is? (See Janda, Joseph, and Newmeyer, in this issue). 9. Is grammaticalization continuous, and if so, what explains this? Is it gradual in some other sense? (This is a central focus of Janda's paper). 10. Are claims about grammaticalization viciously circular, and, if so, to what extent? (See Campbell, Janda, and Newmeyer, in this issue). Does this situation not obtain when, for example, ``reconstructions'' are at ®rst motivated and justi®ed through the invocation of some presumed principle such as unidirectionality (but then, later, the reconstructed examples are argued to provide con®rmation of that principle itself)? Or, similarly, can circularity not be detected when the assumption that certain lexical sources result in particular grammatical outcomes Ð say, that `come' > FUTURE Ð leads researchers to assign the earlier meaning `come' to lexical forms which they see as being the source of a FUTURE morpheme? And is such begging of the question not again present when analysts are tempted to assign the meaning `future' to any FUTURE-like morpheme which derives from a lexical source `come'? In reality, however, the semantics of some source lexemes and some target grammatical morphemes may not actually correspond to the assumption which led to the glosses being assigned to them in the ®rst place Ð thus seeming to add ``evidence'' for the relevant pathway only when grammaticalizationalists engage in the making of such circular self-ful®lling prophecies. 11. How does external socio-cultural history a€ect grammaticalization? How does the sociolinguistic context in which a language is embedded a€ect grammaticalization? (See Janda and Norde, in this issue). 12. Is grammaticalization best seen as lexical > grammatical and less grammatical > more grammatical (this being the case in so-called ``canonical grammaticalization''), or as constituting ``grammar'' in general (so as to bring 110 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 most or even all synchronic and diachronic aspects of language under the umbrella of pragmatic [discourse-]functions, as in ``emergent grammar'')? (These issues are addressed in passing by most of the papers in this issue). 13. What will the future of grammaticalization theory be? What should it be? Discussion of all these and related issues awaits the reader in the pages that follow. So read on Ð recasting slightly Hopper's above-mentioned salvation allegory, we may ask whether there may not be linguistic souls to be saved. References Bybee, J.L., 1996. Productivity, regularity and fusion: how language use a€ects the lexicon. In: Singh, Rajendra (Ed.), Trubetzkoy's Orphan: Proceedings of the. . .Roundtable ``Morphonology: Contemporary Responses''. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 247±269 ((MontreÂal, 30 September±2 October, 1994) [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 144] (plus general ``References'', pp. 335±358)). Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D., Pagliuca, W., 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Campbell, L., 1995a. History of the study of historical syntax. In: Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., Vennemann, T. (Eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 2, ``Research into Syntactic Change, Part II: Approaches'' [HandbuÈcher zur Sprachund Kommunikationswissenschaft, 9]. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1136±1166. Campbell, L., 1995b. Approaches to Reanalysis and Its Role in the Explanation of Syntactic Change. Paper given at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics; Manchester, UK; 13±18, August, 1995. Campbell, L., 1998. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (and Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1999). Craig, C., 1991. In: Traugott, H. (Ed.), Ways to go in Rama: a Case Study in Polygrammaticalization, Vol. II. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 455±492. Croft, W., 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Crowley, T., 1997. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (``3rd'' [1actually 5th] ed.; ``1st'' [1actually 3rd] ed. published by University of Papua New Guinea Press, Port Moresby, and by Institute of Paci®c Studies, University of the South Paci®c [Linguistics Series, 1], Suva, Fiji, 1987; 1st ed. 1981). Diewald, G., 1997. Grammatikalisierung: Eine EinfuÈhrung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen [Germanistische Arbeitshefte, 36]. Max Niemeyer Verlag, TuÈbingen. Gaeta, L., 1998. Some remarks on analogy, reanalysis, and grammaticalization. In: Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37]. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 89±105. Giacalone Ramat, A., 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In: Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37]. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 107±127. Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P., 1998. Introduction. In: Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language, 37]. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1±11. GivoÂn, T., 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archaeologist's ®eld trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394±415. GivoÂn, T., 1979. On Understanding Grammar. Academic Press, New York. Harris, A.C., Campbell, L., 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Haspelmath, M., 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 49±85. Haspelmath, M., 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 1043±1068. L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 111 Hawkins, J.A., 1983. Word Order Universals. Academic Press, New York. Heine, B., 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Heine, B., In press. Grammaticalization. To appear in: Joseph B.D., Janda R.D., (Eds.). Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London, Blackwell. Heine, B., Claudi, U., HuÈnnemeyer, F., 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Heine, B., Reh, M., 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Buske, Hamburg. Hodge, C.T., 1970. The linguistic cycle. The Language Sciences (Indiana University) 13, 1±7. Hoenigswald, H., 1963/1966. Are there universals of linguistic change? In: Greenberg, J.H. (Ed.), Universals of Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1963 (1st ed.) 23±41, 1966, 2nd ed. 30±52). Hopper, P.J., 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 139±157. Hopper, P.J., 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In: Tannen, D. (Ed.), Linguistics in Context. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 117±134. Hopper, P.J., 1991. Traugott, Heine, (Eds.). On Some Principles of Grammaticization, Vol. I, pp. 17±35. Hopper, P.J., 1998. Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). The Paradigm at the End of the Universe, pp. 147±158. Hopper, P.J., Traugott, E.C., 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Joseph, B.D., Janda, R.D., 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In: Hammond, M., Noonan, M. (Eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 193±210. Katz, A., 1998. Recycled morphemes and grammaticalization: the hebrew copula and pronoun. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 17 (1), 59±97. Kuryl/ owicz, J., 1965/1975. The Evolution of Grammatical Categories. Diogenes 51 (1965), 55±71. Reprinted in his Esquisses Linguistiques, vol. II [International Library of General Linguistics, 37; Eugenio Coseriu (Ed.)]. Fink, Munich, 1975, pp. 38±54. Langacker, R.W., 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis. In: Li, C.N. (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 59±139. Lass, R., 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lehmann, C., 1982/1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, Volume 1. Arbeiten des KoÈlner Universalienprojekts 49 (1982) [Department of Linguistics, University of Cologne, Cologne]. Revised as Thoughts on Grammaticalization [LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 1]. LINCOM Europa, Munich, 1995. Lehmann, W.P., 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lessau, D.A., 1994. A Dictionary of Grammaticalization. Brockmeyer, Bochum. Matiso€, J., 1991. Traugott, Heine, (Ed.). Areal and Universal Dimensions of Grammaticalization in Lahu, Vol. II. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 383±453. McMahon, A.M., 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Meillet, A., 1912/1926. L'eÂvolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12 [No. 26(6)] (1912), 384±400. Reprinted in his Linguistique historique et linguistique geÂneÂrale [Collection linguistique publieÂe par la SocieÂte de Linguistique de Paris, 8]. Champion, Paris, 1926 (2nd, enlarged ed.; 1st ed. 1921; reprinted by Klincksieck, Paris, 1951), pp. 130±148. Moreno Cabrera, J.C., 1998. Giacalone Ramat, A., Hopper, P.J. (Eds.). On the Relationship Between Grammaticalization and Lexicalization, pp. 211±227. Pagliuca, W., 1994. Introduction. In: Pagliuca, W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. ix±xx. Samuels, M.L., 1972. Linguistic Evolution: With Special Reference to English. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Steele, S.M., 1977. Clisis and diachrony. In: Li, C.N. (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 539±579. Trask, R.L., 1996. Historical Linguistics. Arnold, London. Traugott, E.C., 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In: Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A., 112 L. Campbell, R. Janda / Language Sciences 23 (2001) 93±112 Singmaster, H. (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14 (Parasession on Grammaticalization), pp. 406±416. Traugott, E.C., 1994. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: Asher, R., Simpson, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 1481±1486. Traugott, E.C., 1995. The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization. Paper given at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics; Manchester; 13±18, August, 1995. Traugott, E.C., In press. Constructions in Grammaticalization, Joseph, B.D., Janda, R.D. (Eds.). Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London, Blackwell. Traugott, E.C., Heine, B., 1991a. Introduction. In: Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I . Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 1±14. Traugott E.C., Heine B., 1991b. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Benjamins, Amsterdam. Traugott, E.C., KoÈnig E, 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In: Traugott, E.C., Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 189± 218. von Fintel, K., 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. In: Beckman, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 25 (University of Pennsylvania), Vol. 2: Papers from the Workshop on Language Acquisition and Language Change. Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusettsat Amherst, Amherst, pp. 175±189. Whaley, L.J., 1997. Introduction to Typology: The Unity and Diversity of Language. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.