Lexicalization

One of the key criteria for identification of the complex items is unit inter- pretation. The source of the complex item is a simple postpositional phrase, i.e. a freely combined syntactic construction that consists of a postpositional head and its nominal complement. As a simple structure, the phrase expresses a com- positional meaning. As the phrase develops into a complex unit that is stored in the ‘mental’ lexicon, it comes to express meaning(s) that are not directly de- rivable from the components of the phrase, and that are carried by the whole utterance. As such, the phenomenon is in line with the definition of lexicali- zation proposed by Brinton and Traugott:

Lexicalization is the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use a syntactic construction or word formation as a new contentful form with formal and semantic properties that are not completely derivable or pre- dictable from the constituents of the construction or the word formation pat- tern. Over time there might be loss of internal constituency and the item may become more lexical. (Brinton, Traugott 2005: 96)

According to Brinton and Traugott (2005: 96–97) lexicalization also includes idiomaticization and fusion. Both of these phenomena are attested in the devel- opment of complex function words in Estonian. For example, consider the utterance mehe+moodi (man+like) which, in contemporary language, functions as both – a simple postpositional phrase (as in example (35)) and a complex adverb (as in example (36)). In example (35), the utterance is considered to be an instance of the simple structure because the first component mehe (man.GEN) refers to a concrete referent (‘my husband’). However, in example (36) mehemoodi (man+like) is idiomaticized, and the constituents of the phrase lose their compositionality. Hence, the utterance is analyzed holistically, and it functions as an adverb of manner expressing the meaning ‘a lot’. In this case, the morphological boundaries have become vague and the utterance has become more fused. It should be noted that in example (36) mehemoodi is still trans- parent. However, following Brinton and Traugott (2005) who state that a lexi- calized form can also be complex, I consider the shift from phrasal level to lexeme to indicate fusion (cf. out-of-hand in Brinton, Traugott 2005: 97).

(35) Ja lapse-Ø välimuse-Ø põhjal nüüd küll minge-i-d

and kid-GEN appearance-GEN based now even some-PL-PRT

järeldus-i teh-a ei anna-Ø, minu-Ø laps

conclusion-PL.PRT make-INF NEG give-CONNEG I-GEN kid

ei ole-Ø mitte ühe-st-ki otsa-st minu-Ø

NEG be-CONNEG not one-ELA-CL end-ELA I-GEN

mehe-Ø moodi, aga tema-Ø oma kahtluse-ta.18

man-GEN alike but s/he-GEN own doubt-ABE

Lit. You should not draw any conclusions based on the appearance; my child is not like my man in any way but is his without any doubt.

‘You should not draw any conclusions based on the appearance; my child does not resemble my husband in any way but is his without any doubt’

(36) Kiirtoit, mis mehemoodi toida-b.19

fast food that man.like nourish-3SG Lit. Fast food that nourishes like a man.

‘Fast food that nourishes well.’

18 _{http://naistekas.delfi.ee/foorum/read.php?9,1421045,page=2 (Accessed 11.01.2016)} 19 _{http://epl.delfi.ee/news/kultuur/kiirtoit-mis-mehemoodi-toidab.d?id=51298232} (Accessed 11.01.2016)

It should be noted that usages as illustrated in example (36) are not instances of regular word formation, which are usually not considered to be instances of lexicalization (c.f. Brinton, Traugott 2005). According to Kasik (2013) the process of development of compound adverbs in Estonian is not considered to be productive. Moreover, Erelt et al. state (1995: 597) that the formation of compound adverbs does not involve composition proper because composition as a means of word formation usually presupposes that the second component of the compound expresses the basic meaning of the compound and determines the part of speech (as in example (37)). However, the development of complex function words is the result of two words ‘melting’ together as they develop a new meaning that is not the sum of the components (as in example (38)). Thus, the development of Estonian complex function words is not described as an instance of word formation, but as a process whereby a new lexical form arises gradually, hence, lexicalization.

(37) magus + hapu > magushapu

sweet sour sweet-and-sour

(38) vahe + peal > vahepeal

gap (space separating something) on between, meanwhile, sometimes noun postposition compound adverb

Habicht and Penjam (2007) also regard lexicalization as a prominent process in the development of compound adverbs and postpositions. For them, lexicali- zation stands for the development of a new item that carries a lexical function (i.e. an adverb). On the other hand, it also stands for the development of a new uninflected word (2007: 53). This means that in the sense of Brinton and Traugott (2005), they consider it to be lexicalization in the narrow sense (i.e. the development of a lexical item) as well as the broader sense (adoption into the inventory). As in this study, the former process is called into question (see section 1.4. and 4.8.2), I only adopt the broader definition of lexicalization, i.e. adoption into the inventory. Nevertheless, in the present account, it is main- tained that lexicalization is required here as a prior condition for grammaticali- zation. If the phrases were not adopted into the inventory, the non-literal readings of mehe moodi (man+like) (in example (36)) could be accounted for by the polysemy of the components. However, the components of the phrase do not carry such meaning as single units (for instance mees ‘man’ does not express the meaning ‘a lot’). Thus, the meaning of the phrase is not directly derivable from its components. Therefore, it is argued that lexicalization is part of the grammaticalization process of complex function words in Estonian and operates in connection with both – the development of a lexical item (complex adverb) and the development of a new grammatical item (complex postposition) (for a similar approach see Lehmann (2002), Rostila (2004); (2006).

Considering the development of the complex unit as an instance of lexicali- zation without consideration for the part of speech may raise a question of the

placement of complex adverbs and complex postpositions relative to each other on the lexis-grammar cline. It was pointed out when describing simple function words (section 2.2) that the categories of adverbs and postpositions are rather close in Estonian, and that in some cases they may express meanings that are rather similar. Jürine and Habicht (2013: 740) point out that this especially applies to complex items because, in general, they are more recent, and the adverbial (39) and the postpositional (40) uses have not yet diverged to any great extent. However, it is expected that the complex postpositions will drift away from complex adverbial uses in time, as they undergo further develop- ments associated with grammaticalization (e.g. extension to new contexts, increase in frequency and productivity, etc.). Some of these features of gram- maticalization are already observable among postpositional uses (see section 2.5.3ff).

(39) Ja see ei tule-Ø vaid selle-st,

and this not come-CONNEG only this-ELA

et need ei satu-Ø tihti käe-Ø alla /…/

that these not appear-CONNEG often hand-GEN under.LAT Lit. And this is not only because these [books] do not appear often under hand. ‘And this is not only because one does not come into new books often.’ (40) /---/ siis nagu just selle-ks puhu-ks hüppa-s mu-Ø

then like just this-TR occasion-TR jump-PST.3SG I-GEN

käe-Ø alla ümbrik, mille-Ø peal ol-i

hand-GEN under.LAT envelope what-GEN on be-PST.3SG

suurelt LEPlNG kirjas.

large contract written down

Lit. Then, as if for the special occasion, an envelope with the word CONTRACT written on it, appeared under my hand.

‘Then as if for the special occasion, I found an envelope with the word CONTRACT written on it’

As adverbs and postpositions, the studied phrases express more abstract mean- ings than as freely combined phrases. As such it is indicative of desemanti- cization, which is considered to be one of the key parameters of grammaticali- zation (Heine, Kuteva 2002, 2007). The present instance of semantic change is considered to indicate demanticization because when used as a holistic unit the components, especially the body part term as the more contentful component, is losing its referential capacity. For instance, mehemoodi in example (36) expresses lexically less contentful meaning than mehe moodi (35). The same applies to vahepeal in example (38) and käe all (hand+under) in examples (39) and (40). However, desemanticization is not considered to be a mere loss in semantic substance but rather a rise of new aspects of meaning (Heine, Kuteva 2006: 60). Accordingly, the usages of postpositional phrases that have gone under desemanticization exemplified above are considered to have gained abstract and, therefore, more grammatical meanings.

2.5.2. The relationship of lexicalization and grammaticalization