Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Dictionary of language and linguistics 486(idiolects) provide areas of disagreement. Grammaticality, like acceptability, is arelative term, which corresponds to a scale of greater or lesser deviation of linguisticexpressions from the underlying rules. ( error analysis)ReferencesChomsky, N. 1961. On the notion ‘rule of grammar.’ In R.Jakobson (ed.), Proceedings of symposiaon applied mathematics, vol. 12: The structure of language and its mathematical aspects,Providence, RI. 255–7.——1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA.Greenbaum, S. (ed.) 1977. Acceptability in language. The Hague.Hudson, A. and A.H.Edwards. 1988. Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic influences on judgementsof grammaticality. Texas Linguistic Forum 30. 137–41.Kac, M. 1991. Grammars and grammaticality. Amsterdam and Philadelphia.Quirk, R. and J.Svartvik, 1966. Investigating linguistic acceptability. The Hague.Spencer, N.J. 1973. Differences between linguistics and nonlinguistics in intuitions ofgrammaticalityacceptability. JPsyR 12. 83–98.grammaticalizationTerm coined by Meillet (1912) to indicate a process of linguistic change whereby anautonomous lexical unit gradually acquires the function of a dependent grammaticalcategory, cf. Lat. habere ‘to have, possess’>Fr. avoir ‘PERFECT TENSE’; Lat. passum‘step’>Fr. pas ‘NEGATION.’ Semantically, this involves a development fromautosemantic (lexical) meaning ( autosemantic word) to synsemantic (grammatical)meaning ( synsemantic word) (on this continuum and its poles, see Sapir 1921;Talmy 1988; Langacker 1989). Seen formally, a loss of syntactic independence andmorphological distinctiveness from other elements of the same paradigm occurs (on thedevelopmental steps, agglutination, cliticization, fusion). In addition, the presence ofthe grammaticalized element becomes increasingly obligatory, with correspondinglyincreasing dependence on and phonological assimilation to another (autonomous)linguistic unit. This process is accompanied by a gradual disappearance of segmental andsuprasegmental phonological features ( segmental feature, suprasegmental feature);as a rule, its absolute conclusion is ‘zero phonological content’ (see Heine and Reh 1984;Lehmann 1985).More recent investigations on grammaticalization have primarily addressed itssemantic and pragmatic aspects with regard to the following questions. (a) Is the changeof meaning that is inherent to grammaticalization a process of desemanticization (seeHeine and Reh 1984), or is it rather a case (at least in the early stages ofgrammaticalization) of a semantic and pragmatic concentration (see Traugott 1989;Traugott and König 1991? (b) What productive parts do metaphors (see Sweetser 1984;Claudi and Heine 1986) and metonyms play in grammaticalization (Traugott and König1991)? (c) What role does pragmatics play in grammaticalization? Givón (1979) and