Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Dictionary of language and linguistics 488Langacker, R. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In C.N.Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin,TX. 57–139.——1989. Subjectification. San Diego, CA.Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. LeS 20. 303–18.——1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich.Lord, C. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: from verb to complementizer in Kwa. In S.B.Steever et al. (eds), Papers from the parassession on diachronic syntax. Chicago, IL. 179–91.Meillet, A. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Linguistique historique et linguistiquegénérale. Paris. 130–48. (2nd edn 1921).Pagliuca, W. (ed.) 1994. Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA.Sapir, E. 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. New York.Shepherd, S. 1982. From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English,creoles, and language acquisition. In A.Ahlqvist (ed.). Papers from the fifth InternationalConference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam. 316–23.Sweetser, E. 1984. Semantic structure and semantic change: a cognitive linguistic study ofmodality, perception. speech acts, and logical relations. Dissertation, Berkeley, CA.Talmy, L. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In B.Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.). Topics incognitive linguistics. Amsterdam. 165–205.Traugott, E.C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semanticpragmaticaspects of grammaticalization. In W.P. Lehmann and Y.Malkiel (eds), Perspectiveson historical linguistics. Amsterdam. 245–71.——1985. Condition markers. In J.Haiman (ed.). Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam. 239–307.——1986. On the origins of ‘and’ and ‘but’ connectives in English. SLang 10. 137–50.——1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. BLS 14. 406–16.——1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semanticchange. Lg 65. 31–55.Traugott. E.C. and E.König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In B.Heine and E.C.Traugott (eds), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam. Vol. 1.Wilkins, D. 1980. Towards a theory of semantic change. Dissertation, Canberra.granularity [Lat. granum ‘seed’]Degree of coarseness or precision in the linguistic characterization of a state of affairs. Itis preset by the given type of text, but can be raised, or made more precise (in exactterms), or lowered, or made less precise (roughly), with certain expressions. Inascertaining the truth value of a statement, one presupposes that the degree of granularityhas already been determined. So, for example, a statement like France is a hexagonalcountry can be considered true with regard to a rough granularity, though false withregard to a fine granularity.ReferenceAustin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford.