Degree modifiers and grammaticalization

From a historical perspective, degree modifiers are generally former lexical items16 _that

have acquired (a) more grammatical function(s) over time. Accordingly, their development can be said to be an example of a process of grammaticalization, briefly defined as:

that subset of linguistic changes whereby a lexical item or construction in certain uses takes on grammatical characteristics, or through which a grammatical item becomes more grammatical

(Hopper &Traugott 2003 [1993]: 2).

To characterise such processes of grammaticalization more precisely, Lehmann (1995 [1982]: 164) posits a set of six correlated parameters, which according to his system, are realised in two dimensions: the syntagmatic (i.e. concerned with linguistic ordering) and the paradigmatic (i.e. having to do with discrete linguistic categories). His scheme is

summarised in figure 2.4, below.

PARADIGMATIC SYNTAGMATIC WEIGHT integrity (i.e. degree of phonological or semantic substance) scope

(i.e. the extent of the construction which it enters or helps to form) COHESION paradigmaticity (i.e. degree of cohesion within a paradigm) bondedness (i.e. the degree of cohesion with another sign)

VARIABILITY paradigmatic variability (i.e. the degree of freedom with which the language user chooses a sign)

syntagmatic variability (i.e. the degree to which a sign may be shifted around in its context)

Figure 2.4 Lehmann’s (1995[1982]) six parameters of grammaticalization According to Lehmann (1985: 307), the degree to which the six parameters

correlate indicates the extent to which a sign has grammaticalized. More specifically, this is measured in terms of the degree of increased cohesion along with decreased weight and variability. However, this judgement is therefore based on synchronic analysis of isolated

16_{As noted above, the present research considers only adverbs that function as degree modifiers, but cf.}

Bolinger (1972: 18) on the possibility of ‘more grammatical’ sources, e.g. more, most and the suffixes of comparison, -er and –est.

stages and does not explain the diachronic processes that lead to the more

grammaticalized forms. To account for this, Lehmann also distinguishes six processes; each one corresponding to one of his parameters. The correspondence between Lehmann’s parameters and processes is summarised in figure 2.5, below.

Weak

grammaticalization

-

PARAMETERS

integrity bundle of semantic features, rich phonological substance

- attrition few semantic features,

reduced phonological substance

paradigmaticity item participates loosely in semantic field - paradigmaticizat ion small, tightly integrated paradigm paradigmatic variability free choice of items

according to communicative intentions

- obligatorification choice systematically constrained, use largely obligatory SYNTAGMATIC

PARAMETERS

scope item relates to

constituent of arbitrary complexity

- condensation item modifies a word

or stem bondedness item is independently

juxtaposed - coalescence item is affix or even phonological feature of carrier

syntagmatic variability item can be shifted

around freely - fixation item occupies a fixed slot

Figure 2.5 – Parameters and processes of grammaticalization (adapted from Lehmann 2005: 309)

The processes of attrition, paradigmaticization, and obligatorification describe the diachronic processes that correspond to the paradigmatic parameters of integrity,

paradigmaticity, and paradigmatic variability, respectively. Briefly, attrition results in ‘the gradual loss of semantic and phonological substance’ (Lehmann 1985: 307). In other works on grammaticalization, semantic attrition is distinguished from phonological attrition, with the latter sometimes referred to as ‘erosion’ (cf. e.g. Hopper & Traugott 1993, 2003; Traugott & Dasher 2002; Heine 2006: 579) and ‘desemanticization’ and ‘semantic

ADJECTIVE

[ADVERB]

_MODIFER DEGREE

bleaching’17 _{among alternative labels for the former. The process of paradigmaticization}

describes the tendency for grammaticalized forms to be arranged into increasingly small, homogeneous paradigms (Lehmann 1985: 307 and Heine 2006: 588 for further details). Finally, the process of obligatorification concerns ‘the tendency for optional forms to become used obligatorily’ (Heine 2006: 588) as choice among members of a paradigm becomes constrained by grammatical rules.

On the syntagmatic axis, figure 2.5 demonstrates the relations between the

parameters of scope, bondedness, and syntagmatic variability and the respective processes, condensation, coalescence, and fixation. Essentially, condensation refers to scope

reduction, coalescence concerns an increase in bondedness at the morphological level, and fixation is the process whereby a construction loses freedom or variability at the syntactic level, coming to occupy a fixed syntactic slot.

The cumulative effects of these six processes in an overall process of

grammaticalization are that the grammaticalized construction can be seen to undergo extension, i.e. when the construction comes to be used in new contexts that were previously unavailable to it (see e.g. Heine 2006: 580) and decategorialization (Hopper 1991: 22), i.e. when the construction shifts grammatical category, e.g. from a ‘major’ or ‘open class paradigm’, e.g. nouns or verbs, to a ‘minor’, ‘closed-class’ one, e.g.

conjunctions, inflections etc. (see e.g. Heine 2006: 588-589 for further details). As for degree modifiers, evidence from previous research exemplifies how Lehmann’s parameters and processes apply to their grammaticalization. Overall, their development can be illustrated by the cline in figure 2.6, since they are typically recruited from the domain of adverbs, which, in turn, tend to be derived from adjectives (via a particular sub-type of grammaticalization known as adverbialization).

Figure 2.6 – Typical cline of grammaticalization involved in the development of degree modifiers.

A well-known instantiation of this cline is Middle English verray. In origin, this was an adjective conveying the meaning ‘true’, as in ‘a verray (true) priest’ (cf. MED s.v.verrei,

17 _{It is often suggested that all three terms, attrition, desemanticization and semantic bleaching are inadequate}

because although grammaticalized concepts do lose their original meaning(s), they also gain new meanings. In this respect, terms such as ‘semantic enrichment’ are also offered to aid the description of the changes that occur in paradigmatic weight during processes of grammaticalization (cf. e.g. Hopper &Traugott, 1993: 88).

adj.), but over time, it underwent grammaticalization, eventually resulting in the use that survives in PDE, viz. very as a degree modifier (booster), meaning ‘to a great degree’, e.g. ‘very happy’ (cf. OED s.v.very, adv.).

In accordance with Lehmann’s proposals (outlined above), there is, at each stage of the cline, loss of paradigmatic weight, or integrity, not necessarily in phonological terms, but always in semantic terms, as the grammaticalizing constructions undergo (semantic) attrition. For instance, in the case of the degree modifier very (outlined, above), the original adjective verray is ‘bleached’ of its adjectival meaning, ‘true’ (notice that this loss is coupled with semantic enrichment as very takes on its new degree meaning). On the syntagmatic axis, degree modifiers tend to display a decrease in scope over time as a result of the process of condensation. This is clearly evidenced in the development of the degree modifier right, which develops ‘from an adjunct having the whole predication in its scope, to a modifier of [only] the element it precedes’ (Méndez-Naya 2006: 159). In relation to the parameter of cohesion, the grammaticalization of degree modifiers always involves

paradigmaticization as the constructions leave a larger, ‘open-class’ paradigm, viz.

adjective, becoming part of increasingly smaller ‘closed-class’ paradigms, viz. adverb18 _and

degree modifier, respectively. A decrease in variability is evidenced on the syntagmatic axis as a result of fixation. At the initial stage on the cline represented in figure 2.6, the

adjectives have relative syntactic freedom in that they can typically occur in attributive and predicative position. Likewise as adverbs (stage 2 on the cline), the constructions typically have the ability to appear in various syntactic positions e.g. sentence initial, sentence final, pre-verbal, post-verbal (see Quirk et al. 1985: 490ff for details on the various positions of adverbs). Though not all the adverbs that become degree modifiers are able to appear in all the above-mentioned positions, the point is that at this stage, they have more syntactic freedom than they do as degree modifiers, when they are typically restricted to the syntactic slot immediately before the constituent they modify (see, e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 590ff; Paradis 1997). Once again, the development of degree modifier right provides an illustration of this:

18 _{In actual fact, the present research here follows Heine (2006) in his endorsement of adverbs as constituting a}

closed-class grammatical paradigm, though this issue is somewhat controversial, with many other scholars taking the view that they are an open-class lexical one (see e.g. Quirk et al. 1985 and Huddleston & Pullum 2002). Since it is not of import with regard to the focus of this thesis, the divergent scholarly opinion on this matter of adverbial classification will not be discussed any further in the present work. For details of this, the reader is directed, for example, to Ramat & Rica (1994).

…‘right’ adjunct was not restricted to any position in the clause. As a focusing modifier, however, it could at first occur pre- or postposed…but at the close of the Middle English period its position became fixed: it could only be found preceding the focused element. As an intensifier right always precedes its head.(Méndez-Naya 2006: 159).

Closer examination of the above-mentioned studies on degree modifiers that do take diachronic approaches reveals a noticeable trend for analysis of the

grammaticalization processes pertaining to members of the booster sub-category (e.g. Peters 1992 on the competition of boosters across time; Méndez-Naya 2003 on the development of swīƿe; Adamson & González-Díaz 2004 on the development of very; Méndez-Naya 2006, 2007 on the development of right) as well as a smaller selection concerned with items from the moderator group (e.g. Nevalainen & Rissanen 2002 on the development of pretty and fairly; Rissanen 2008 on the development of rather ). In light of this, the present study focuses on a comparatively under-investigated sub-category, namely the maximizer one.