Cover not available
Article published In:
Transcategoriality: A crosslinguistic perspective
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Danh Thành Do-Hurinville and Huy Linh Dao
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 5:1] 2018
► pp. 106–132

The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory

Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning

| LLACAN, CNRS, Sorbonne-Paris Cité & INALCO
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.
Keywords: polycategoriality, polysemy, grammaticalization, fractal grammar, categorization, typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1From grammaticalization to transcategoriality
    • 1.2The challenge
  • 2.A dynamic model: Fractal grammar
    • 2.1Why are transcategorial morphemes fractal?
    • 2.2Scale invariance: the common ‘schematic form’
    • 2.3Schematic form: beyond semantic generalization, a matrix form
    • 2.4Scale properties and the construction of variation
      • 2.4.1Triggering factor
      • 2.4.2Domain of application and scope of the term
      • 2.4.3Paradigmatic properties
      • 2.4.4Syntactic properties of the structural level
      • 2.4.5Semantics of the category, semantics of the function, semantics of the position
      • 2.4.6Restrictions or loss of combinatory restrictions specific to the category also function as scale properties
      • 2.4.7The scope of anaphora and co-reference are also defined by the category in which the unit functions
    • 2.5Limits and refinement of the model
      • 2.5.1Persistence (or remanence) of scale properties
      • 2.5.2On grammaticalization chains and extensions
  • 3.Typology of transcategoriality
    • 3.1Oriented transcategoriality
    • 3.2Generic transcategoriality
    • 3.3Functional transcategoriality
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00015.rob
References (47)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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
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
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
(2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culioli, A. (1990). Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, vol. 11. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. F. (1988). The mechanisms of ‘construction grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 141, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. (1996). Grammaticalization of the Complex Sentence: A case study in Chadic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Gleick, J. (1991). La théorie du chaos. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar. Approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Güldemann, T., & von Roncador, M. (Eds.). (2002). Reported speech: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagège, C. (1990). The dialogic species. A linguistic contribution to the social sciences. New-York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
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
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1992). Grammaticalization chains. Studies in language, 16(2), 335–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 131, 139–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 11. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Cognitive Grammar. In F. G. Droste & J. E. Joseph, Linguistic theory and grammatical gescription (pp. 275–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lord, C. (1976). Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society. Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. (1975). Les Objets fractals, forme, hasard et dimension. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robert, S. (1997). From body to argumentation: grammaticalization as a fractal property of language (the case of Wolof ginnaaw). Berkeley Linguistics Society, 231, 116–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2003). Perspectives synchroniques sur la grammaticalisation: Polysémie, transcatégorialité et échelles syntaxiques. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
(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
(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
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruelland, S. (1998). Je pense et je parle comme je suis: le corps, le monde et la parole en tupuri. Faits de langues, 11/121, 335–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Sapoval, B. (1997). Universalité et fractales. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 141, 389–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). What’s a noun? (or: How do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?). Studies in Language, 101, 353–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

do Carmo Jr., José Roberto & Thiago Corrêa de Freitas
2015. Melodic Primitives and Semiosis. Signata :6 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.