Grammaticalization theory: unidirectional subjectification

The diachronic development of (causal) connectives has been studied more or less extensively within the framework of grammaticalization theory (cf. Heine, Claudi &

Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994).

Grammaticalization theory can be defined as: “(…) that part of the study of language that focuses on how grammatical forms and constructions arise, how they are used, and how they shape the language” (Hopper & Traugott 1993: 1). Among the topics addressed by grammaticalization theory are: the (non-)discreteness of the boundaries between (grammatical) categories and the interdependence between structure and use. One of the aims grammaticalization theory strives for is

identifying recurrent patterns in diachronic change, such as ‘clines’ or ‘continua’ - to be understood as “having certain focal points where phenomena may cluster”

(Hopper & Traugott 1993: 7), and along which transitional processes in grammaticalization take place (Kortmann 1997: 20).

It is generally assumed that grammaticalization processes comprise consecutive stages: shifts from content word (lexical phrase) to function word occur in a relatively early stage; in later stages more or less grammaticalized elements acquire other (more) or different functions (Lehmann 1988: 303; Traugott 1995a:

32). This process can be schematized as follows:

(3) lexical element→ functional element 1 → functional element 2 Examples of alleged grammaticalization processes of two connectives in modern English are (4) and (5):

(4) by cause of → because

(5) Þa hwile Þe → while (´during´) → while (´although´) (´at the time that´) (discourse function)

(deictic function)

The change of the lexical element cause in the adverbial construction by cause of in (4) into the causal connective because is an example of the first change. This type of grammaticalization is also exemplified by the first part of the change in (5): the adverbial phrase Þa hwile Þe (´at the time that´) developed into the temporal connective while. The next change in (5), where while develops from a temporal into a concessive connective, can be seen as an example of the later stage in the

grammaticalization process (Traugott 1995a: 39ff).

Part of these grammaticalization phenomena appear to co-occur with a specific change of conceptual meaning, defined as an ‘increase in subjectivity’ (cf.

Langacker 1990 and contributions to Stein & Wright 1995). The ‘subjectification hypothesis’ states that – IF meaning change occurs in a grammaticalization process - meanings get to be based increasingly in the speaker’s subjective knowledge or attitude with respect to the proposition uttered (Traugott 1995a: 31). Or, as formulated by Traugott & König – subjectification is a tendency to change:

from meanings grounded in more or less objectively identifiable

extralinguistic situations to meanings grounded in the speaker’s subjective attitude to or a belief about what is said. (Traugott & König 1991: 189) So, subjectivity presupposes some degree of integration of the perceiver in the description of an object or a process. The subjectification hypothesis states that the degree of perceiver integration increases diachronically (Cuenca 1997:5). This hypothesis is assumed to hold for connectives as well (see for example Traugott 1995a; Dasher 1995; Keller 1995).

It is generally believed that subjectification is a unidirectional phenomenon; that is: if a meaning change occurs (of course, not every linguistic element undergoes semantic change), a form develops from less subjective usages to more subjective ones, but never the other way round. Traugott (1995a: 39) specifically claims that

“historically, virtually all grammatical markers of clause combining can be shown to have developed out of some earlier more ‘objective’ function” (cf. also Bybee et al.

(1994: 4). By way of illustration, consider the likely development of Dutch nu (‘now’):

(6) a. nu as a deictic element:

Ik wil graag nu over dat probleem praten.

b. nu as a temporal connective:

Nu ik je zie denk ik er weer aan dat ik met jou over dat probleem wilde praten.

c. nu as a discourse marker:

De oplossing van dat probleem ken ik, maar hoe zit het nu met dit probleem?

In terms of Schiffrin (1987: 230), who presents an analysis of usage of the related English now, the word nu in (6)a-c can be characterized consecutively as

communicating ‘reference time’, ‘event time’ and ‘discourse time’. In (6)a nu refers to a specific point of time occurring in the real world; the word has a purely objective, deictic function, in which the speaker’s attitude is irrelevant/ absent. In (6)b, nu marks the temporal relation between two propositions. This temporal organization is produced by the speaker (although it may very well coincide with the course of events in the real world), and therefore this usage of nu can be considered as more subjective than its deictic usage. In (6)c, the temporal character of nu has disappeared. In this example, nu functions as a ‘discourse marker’: it marks the introduction of a new discourse topic. In this fragment, coherence is a purely mental phenomenon, a product of the speaker’s understanding of the world, licensing an interpretation of this kind of usage as the most subjective type of the three

mentioned (cf. argumentation in Traugott 1995a: 40). ‘Subjectification’ of nu can be established if it turns out that the more subjective usage types appear later in time, and develop out of the less subjective ones (cf. approach presented in Traugott &

König 1991)³.

The grammaticalization processes summarized in (4) and (5) can be analyzed as cases of ‘subjectification’ in the same vein. In the development of while for example, two subjectification trends can be found. The first case of

subjectification is the change of Þa hwile Þe into temporal while. Instead of profiling a specific time, while now profiles discourse structure which is the responsibility of the speaker. The second case of subjectification is the development of temporal while into concessive while. The new use construes a world that has no reference in the described situation, but only in the speaker’s world or, more specifically the speaker’s reasoning about coherence between the reported events.

How does subjectification, in essence a conceptual phenomenon, relate to functional (grammatical) change? Not surprisingly, grammaticalization theory focuses mainly on semantic developments that coincide with grammatical (or functional?) changes.

Traugott (1995a: 32) concentrates on ‘subjectification in grammaticalization’, which is, broadly speaking: “the development of a grammatically identifiable expression of speaker belief or speaker attitude to what is said”. Moreover, she observes that “the tendency for subjectification is, to a large extent, correlated with the early

grammaticalization of elements” (1995: 47).

But there is evidence that subjectification occurs in later stages of grammaticalization as well. An example of subjectification within function is reported by Keller (1995), who analyzes the recent development of the German causal connective weil, that seems to be extending its usage repertory from ‘content causality’ to ‘epistemic causality’ (cf. Chapter 4). But whereas this subjectification process does not involve ‘change of function’, it does coincide with a syntactic change (from ‘verb final’ to main clause word order).

3 That is, the development of nu from a deictic element to connective to discourse marker is in line with the ‘cline’ proposed by Traugott (1995a: 1): clause-internal adverbial > sentence aderbial > discourse particle (of which category ‘discourse marker’ is a subtype).

Moreover, it appears that subjectification can occur independently from functional or grammatical change. An example of ‘within function subjectification without syntactic change’ is Traugott’s (1995a) finding that the connective while extended its use diachronically from being a marker of temporal relations to a marker of concessive relations – subjectification within a specific grammatical function - already discussed above. Sweetser’s (1990) hypotheses with respect to the

development in terms of ‘domains of use’ of the connectives because, since and but may be interpreted as a similar indication that subjectification can occur

independently from functional or grammatical change. Sweetser advances a very specific hypothesis on the diachronic development that explicitly concerns a unidirectional cline within one and the same grammatical or functional category (cf.

discussion in Chapter 4): “There is (…) a general tendency to borrow concept and vocabulary from the more accessible physical and social world to refer to the less accessible worlds of reasoning, emotion, and conversational structure” (Sweetser 1990:31). In other words, Sweetser predicts that, if a connective develops from a (combination of) content word(s), the connective will occur diachronically first only in content domain contexts, and only in later stages in epistemic and speech act contexts too.⁴

In sum, although ‘subjectification’ is a widely attested phenomenon in the diachronic development of connectives, some interesting questions remain

unanswered. Does the ‘unidirectional subjectification’ hypothesis hold for all types of connectives? Are there any restrictions to the occurrence of subjectification? How does it relate to changes to or from the connective function? And does

subjectification occur with changes within the connective function as well? These questions will be investigated by carrying out a quantitative analysis of the diachronic development of dus and daarom, reported in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.