The Syntax of Early English - Cryptm.org

290 The syntax of early Englishversion of irreversibility by taking less than full account of potentialcounterexamples, i.e. cases advanced in the literature as instances of degrammaticalization,where linguistic elements have developed from functionalinto more lexical items (this is also often termed ‘lexicalization’).Where such cases do occur, e.g. a particle like up developing into a fullylexical verb, as in They upped the costs to the public, Haspelmath dismissesthem as cases of ‘conversion’. However, it may be argued that the changefrom particle ‘up’ to verb ‘up’ follows some of the parameters described intable 9.1 in reverse order, i.e. the verb ‘up’ shows less syntactic bondednessand more scope than the particle ‘up’, and that it can therefore be consideredto instantiate grammaticalization in reverse (see also Hopper andTraugott 1993: 49).Virtually all writers on grammaticalization view the process as being semanticallydriven, with semantic bleaching playing a primary role. Rubba (1994:81), for instance, describes it as primarily a process of semantic change. Bybeeet al. (1994: 17–18) even suggest that we can reconstruct the path of grammaticalizationwith the help of the ‘hypothesis that semantic change is predictable’.There is some difference of opinion as to the stage of grammaticalization inwhich bleaching is most prominent. According to most investigators of thephenomenon, the bleaching of source concepts sets off the process (cf. Givón1975, Lehmann 1982, Heine and Reh 1984, Bybee and Pagliuca 1985: 59–63,Heine et al. 1991a), but according to some others (notably Traugott 1982 andHopper and Traugott 1993: 87–93), bleaching is a process that occurs in thelater stages of grammaticalization, the semantic shift at the beginning beingone of pragmatic enrichment rather than loss.The notion of graduality implies that grammaticalization is seen as ‘an evolutionalcontinuum. Any attempt at segmenting it into discrete units must remainarbitrary to some extent’ (Heine and Reh 1984: 15; see also Heine et al. 1991a:68, 165 and passim). Heine et al. (1991b) indeed refer to the process as a ‘chain’.The idea of graduality is also closely connected with the prominent position ofsemantic change in grammaticalization theory. Grammaticalization is usuallyseen as the result of ‘conceptual manipulation’ (Heine et al. 1991b: 174), aprocess in which semantic change is intertwined with and followed by grammaticalrestructuring. In other words, semantic and grammatical changes areusually seen as interdependent, with semantic change leading to grammarchange almost automatically, as it were. We should bear in mind, however, thatsemantic change takes place at the lexical level, that it depends on context,connotation and discourse and that it involves individual expressions.Grammar change, on the other hand, involves an abstract constructional level,and involves rules and categories. Changes in grammatical behaviour are con-