Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 271–294

From a single lexical unit to multiple grammatical paradigms

This paper studies the reanalysis, grammaticalisation, and paradigmatization of constructions becoming members of grammatical paradigms. The changes are illustrated by means of a single lexical unit, i.e. the French verb of perception, voir “to see”. The verb is found in very different contexts, which have been reanalysed and resulted in grammaticalized structures. Therefore, voir provides an interesting illustration of the pathway of a lexical unit into grammar. One reanalysis has resulted in the creation of voir followed by the deictic relative as part of a marker of progression, i.e. as a member of the category of tense, aspect, and mood. Another pathway involves the imperative form of the verb, which has grammaticalized as presentatives (voici and voilà). These forms have undergone further grammaticalization or, following the terms of Henning Andersen, regrammation, into markers of focalization.
Keywords: constructions, deixis, focalization, French verb of perception voir ‘to see’, grammaticalisation, paradigmaticity, regrammation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical frame
    • 2.1Grammation and regrammation
    • 2.2Paradigms
  • 3.Constructions of presentation and focus
    • 3.1Definitions
    • 3.2Inventory of structures
      • 3.2.1C’est X
      • 3.2.2Il y a X
      • 3.2.3Il est X
      • 3.2.4 Voici/voilà X
      • 3.2.5Avoir X qui
      • 3.2.6X est là qui
      • 3.2.7Je vois X qui
    • 3.3Conclusion on partial paradigms
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.345.12kra
References (42)
References
Andersen, Hanne Leth. 2007. Marquers discursifs propositionnels. Langue française 154. 13–28.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2001a. Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. linguistic change in progress, 226–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2001b. Introduction. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2001c. Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In Henning Andersen (ed.), Actualization. linguistic change in progress, 21–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2006. Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23. 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Thorhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal Papers, 11–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2007. La co-variation des marquers discursifs "bon, c'est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand-même, quoi et si vous voulez": une question d'identité? Langue française 154. 78–93.Google Scholar
Benzakour, Fouzia. 1984. Les relatives déictiques. In Georges Kleiber (ed.), Recherches en pragma-sémantique, 75–106. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine 2010. Pragmaticalisation du marqueur discursif `tu vois'. De la perception à l'évidence et de l'évidence au discours. In Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2010, New Orleans, United States) (eds) F. Neveu, J. Durand, T. Klingler, Sophie Prévost & V. Muni-Toké. Paris: Institut de linguistique française. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadiot, Pierre. 1976. Relatives et infinitives «déictiques» en français. DRLAV 13. 1–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1978. Où t'as ta femme? Semantikos 2: 2–3. 1–20.Google Scholar
Conti, Virginie. 2010. La construction en avoir SN qui SV (« j’ai ma copine qui habite à Paris ») : une forme de dispositif clivé ? Linx 62–63. 63–87.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane & Claus D. Pusch. 2007. Présentation. Les marqueurs discursifs. Sens et variation. Langue française 154. 3–12.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth, Mike D. Fortescue, Peter Harder, Lars Heltoft & Lisbeth Falster Jakobsen. 1996. Content, expression and structure: studies in Danish functional grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Yael Maschler & Susanne Uhmann. 2010. A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: evidence from English, German and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, Naoyo. 2000. Elle est là qui pleure : construction à thème spatialement localisé. Langue française 127. 95–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Pour une sémantique des constructions grammaticales. Thème et thématicité. Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice & André Goosse. 1988. Le bon usage. Paris-Louvain: Duculot.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaubert, Anna. 1990. La lecture pragmatique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1996. Reconstruction in morphology. In Marc Durie & Malcolm Ross (eds.), The comparative method revisited, 218–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen. 2009. Konstruktionsdannelse som grammering. Ny forskning i grammatik 16. 191–210.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen & Lene Schøsler. 2014. Reanalysis and grammaticalization of constructions. In Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change, 169–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2015. Regrammation and paradigmatization. Reanalyses of the deictic relative construction with progressive function in French. Journal of French Language Studies 25. 265–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Derfor har vi brug for paradigmer. In Marie Herget Christensen, Jan Heegård, Lars Heltoft, Eva Skafte Jensen, Sune Sønderberg Mortensen & Peter Juul Nielsen (eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik, 124–143. København: Dansk Sprognævn.Google Scholar
Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen & Erling Strudsholm. 2013. The relevance of deixis in the description of the predicative relative clause. In Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh & Jan Lindschouw (eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages, 207–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle : la relative de perception comme construction présentative. Langue française 127. 49–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39. 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Robert. 1981. Thème et thématisation de l’énoncé. Travaux linguistique de Gant 8. 27–48.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 1997. Note sur la dislocation du sujet : thématisation ou focalisation? InGeorges Kleiber & Martin Riegel (eds.), Les formes du sens. Études de linguistique française, médievale et générale offerte à Robert Martin à l'occasion de ses 60 ans, 281–294. Louvain-la-Neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning & Hanne Korzen. 1999. Kapitel IX, 1. Topologi 1. København: Handelshøjskolen.Google Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft & Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting grammaticalization. The role of paradigmatic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponchon, Thierry. 1994. Semantique lexicale et sémantique grammaticale: le verbe faire en français médiéval. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat & René Rioul. 2009 [1994]. Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Univesitaires de France.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan & Julie Glickman. 2015. Origin and development of French parenthetical verbs. In Stefan Schneider, Julie Glickman & Mathieu Avanzi (eds.), Parenthetical verbs, 163–188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willems, Dominique & Bart Defrancq. 2000. L'attribut de l'objet et les verbes de perception. Langue française 127. 6–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilmet, Marc. 1997. Grammaire critique du français. Louvain-la-Neuve: Hachette Duculot.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten
2021. Proposition d’une classification des marqueurs discursifs comme membres d’un paradigme. Langue française N° 209:1 ► pp. 119 ff. DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten
2022. Voilà , membre du paradigme des marqueurs discursifs. Langages N° 227:3 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.