Cover not available
Part of
Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 176–196

Chapter 7
New perspectives on phonological erosion as an aspect of grammaticalization

| The University of Texas at El Paso

Phonological erosion as a concomitant of grammaticalization has been a prevailing assumption for four decades. Phonological erosion is, in fact, a general diachronic process with reduction occurring at the rate of about 15–20% per millennium. Reduction related to grammaticalization is often faster than the nominal rate and this has supported the standard theory. In a language, which is an adaptive and isostatic system, phonological loss, at nominal or accelerated rates, whether associated with grammaticalization or otherwise, interacts with mechanisms of compensation. Such interaction, a complex process, supports lexical right-sizing, an expression of the Quantity Principle. Phonological loss that accompanies grammaticalization, often significant and often uncompensated, is one aspect of this general diachronic process.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The loss of phonological bulk: The preliminary benchmark
  • 3.Phonological loss, compensation, and the efficiency constant
  • 4.Accelerated and uncompensated loss as an aspect of right-sizing
  • 5.Right-sizing extended to cases of grammaticalization
  • 6.Right-sizing as a complex adaptive process with stochastic effect
  • 7.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.07ele
References
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan L. Christiansen, Morton, H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Tom
2009 Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper. Language Learning 59(Supplement 1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Charles H.
1987 Information, dissipation, and the definition of organization. In Emerging Syntheses in Science, David Pines (ed.) 215–233. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bourciez, Édouard
1946 Éléments de linguistique Romane, 4th edn. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1):1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2010 Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2001 What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elerick, Charles
2016 Lexical right-sizing in the evolution of Spanish: Understanding language as a complex adaptive system. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 96(3): 183–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Austin F. & Jaeger, Florian T.
2008 Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 30.   [URL] > (30 December 2022).
Gillièron, Jules
1918 Généalogie des mots qui désignent l’abeille, d’apres l’Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1991 Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15(1): 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991 Grammaticalization. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild
1984 Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1968 The State of the Art. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul F. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1993[2003] Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian
2015 Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. In On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change [Benjamins Current Topics 79], Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquiére & Freek Van de Velde (eds), 205–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lapesa, Rafael
1981 Historia de la lengua española, 9th edn. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lüdtke, Helmut
1974 Historia del léxico románico. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm
1926 Introducción a la lingüística románica. Madrid: Revista de filología española.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D.
2010 Language Change and Linguistic Theory, Vol. II: Morphological, Syntactic, and Typological Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Palmer, Leonard Robert
1954 The Latin Language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., Tily, Harry & Gibson, Edward
2011 Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. PNAS 108(9): 3526–3529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René
2010 Reconsidering erosion in grammaticalization. In Grammaticalization. Current Views and Issues [Studies in Language Companion Series 119], Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds), 73–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude & Weaver, Warren
1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Voretzsch, Karl
1918 Altfranzösische Sprache, 5th edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Voyles, Joseph
1987 The cardinal numerals in pre-and Proto-Germanic. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 86: 487–499.Google Scholar
Wanner, Dieter
1987 The Development of Romance Clitic Pronouns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Wartburg, Walter
1934 Évolutión et structure de la langue française. Berlin: Teubner.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K.
1965 The Psycho-Biology of Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar