The interaction of Components in an FDG account of grammaticalization (International Workshop on "The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Mood and Modality from a Functional Perspective",

The interaction of Components in an

FDG account of grammaticalization

Riccardo Giomi

University of Lisbon ILTECInstituto de

Linguística Teórica e Computacional – Lisbon

1.Theoretical background

2.Defining an extended FDG model of grammaticalization

3.Applying the model

4.Conclusions and implications

2

Outline of the talk

3

1. Theoretical background

Grammaticalization as a usage-based phenomenon

• Grammaticalization “requires appropriate contexts to take place [...]. Key notions relating to this model are context-induced reinterpretation, pragmatic inferencing, invited inference, conversational implicature [...], (cf. Traugott and König 1991; see also Dahl 1985: 11.)” (Heine 2003: 587)

• “If a particular pragmatic inference […] occurs very frequently […] with a particular form, that [inferential] meaning can become firmly associated with the form and cause it to show up in new contexts.” (Bybee 2006: 725)

Theoretical background

4

On the role of context in grammaticalization (Heine 2002)

Stage Context Resulting meaning

I. Initial stage Unconstrained Source meaning

II. Bridging context

There is a specific context giving rise to an inference in favor of a new meaning

Target meaning foregrounded

III. Switch context

There is a new context which is incompatible with the source meaning

Source meaning backgrounded

IV. Conventionalization

The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it; it may be used in new contexts

Target meaning only 5

A scenario of how a linguistic expression acquires a new grammatical meaning

Grammaticalization in FDG

• Formal scale: operators < lexical operators < lexemes

6

• Grammaticalization paths (Hengeveld 2011, Keizer 2007)• Functional scale:

Grammaticalization in FDG

1.How can the pragmatic motivations for grammaticalization processes be accounted for in FDG?

2.How can we represent the conventionalization of an inference (i.e. at which point does an inferential meaning give rise to a new grammatical operator)?

7

The architecture of FDG

8FDG as part of a wider theory of verbal interaction (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 6)

The Conceptual Component of FDG

9

“The Conceptual Component is the driving force behind the Grammatical Component as a whole. It is here that is represented the ideational and interactive material presupposed by each piece of discourse under analysis […]. The Conceptual Component does not include every aspect of cognition that is potentially relevant for linguistic analysis, but only those that affect the immediate communicative intention.” (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 7)

“The Conceptual Component thus contains the Speaker’s communicative intention and the strategies that s/he wishes to deploy in order to achieve that intention.” (ibid.: 47)

The Conceptual Component of FDG

10

(1)“Close the window.”Conceptual Component Have the Addressee close the

window

Grammatical Component IL: (F: IMP (F))

(2)“Can you close the window?”Conceptual Component Have A close the window;

Do so in a polite way, by asking about A’s ability to close the window

Grammatical Component IL: (F: INTERR (F))RL: (abil fc: –close the

window– (fc))

The Contextual Component of FDG

11

“With the […] Contextual Component, FDG […] makes no effort to offer anything like a complete description of the overall discourse context. Rather, this Component contains two types of information, both of them limited in scope.

• [Connolly’s 2007 discoursal context] immediate information received from the Grammatical Component […] which is relevant to the form that subsequent utterances may take.

• [Connolly’s situational context] longer-term information about the ongoing interaction that is relevant to the distinctions that are required in the language being used, and which influence formulation and encoding in that language.” (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 9-10)

A ‘wider theory of verbal interaction’

12

A ‘wider theory of verbal interaction’

13

The Contextual Component of FDG

14

(3) ¡Qué pálid-a est-ás!what pale-F.SG COP-

IND.PRS.2.SG.FAM‘How pale you look!’

“the choice of the forms pálida (rather than pálido ‘pale-M.SG’) and estás (rather than está ‘COP-IND.PRS.2.SG.POL’) reflects specifications in the Contextual Component, i.e. the sex of the Addressee and the formality of the relation between Speaker and Addressee respectively.” (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 10)

Toward an extended FDG modelof grammaticalization

15

1.How can the pragmatic motivations for grammaticalization processes be accounted for in FDG?

• Neither the Conceptual nor the Contextual Component, as they currently stand, provide the means to account for the inferential mechanisms that trigger the process of grammaticalization.

16

2. Defining the model

Toward an extended FDG modelof grammaticalization

17

• How can the pragmatic motivations for grammaticalization processes be accounted for in FDG?

• Extending the FDG model:• The multi-component system postulated by FDG is

necessarily integrated within a wider model of human inferencing.• The Contextual Component can be “re-interpreted as an implicit common ground” (Mackenzie 2012: 421) which is shared and co-constructed by the speech participants as

the exchange unfolds (see also Connolly 2007, 2010 and Cornish 2009, 2013).

18

(2) Can you close the window?

Source meaning: (abil fc)↓

Target meaning: (mit F: IMP (F))≈ Please close the

window.

•Context-induced reinterpretation

Bridging contexts in FDG

19

(4) You will close the window.

Source meaning: (fut ep)↓

Target meaning: (F: IMP (F))≈ Close the window.

•Context-induced reinterpretation



20

FDG is only concerned with the formal representation of the grammatical distinctions which are overtly realized in a given language:

the inferential meanings occurring in bridging contexts cannot be represented within the Grammatical Component but only in a broadly conceived Contextual Component.

21The interaction of Components in the production of You will close the window.


Contextual Component

Target m eaning

Conceptual Com ponent Have A close the window; Do so in an indirect way, by affirming that A will close the window

Gram

matica

l Com

pone

nt Discoursal Context

A

a Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL: (AI:[(FI: DECL (F))…(CI:[…(RI: [-S, +A]) ...] (CI))] (AI))

RL: (pi: (fut epi:–close the window–(epi)) (pi))

IL: (AI:[(FI: DECL (FI))…(CI:[…(RI: [-S, +A]) ...] (CI))] (AI))

RL: (pi: … (fut epi:–close the window–(epi)…(pi))

IL: (AI):[(FI): IM P (FI))…(CI:[… (RI: [-S, +A]) ...] (CI))] (AI))

RL: (epi:–close the window–(epi)

Form ulation

Encoding

Situational Context

A S has

authority over A

Encyclopedic knowledge

controlled action

Encyclopedic knowledge closing the window is a controlled action

22

• occur in a clearly identifiable (cluster of) context(s), definable in terms of necessary conditions (linguistic and/or contextual);

• only affect the meaning of one specific construction.

The inference foregrounding the target meaning must be at least minimally systematic, i.e.

Bridging contexts in an extended model of FDG

On the role of context in grammaticalization

23

“While the target meaning is the one most likely to be inferred, it is still cancellable [...], that is, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning cannot be ruled out.” (Heine 2002: 84)

I.Bridging contexts

• Cancellation of an inference

(2b) Can you close the window or is it still blocked?

(4b) You will close the window when you feel cold, I guess.

24

a. “They are incompatible, or in conflict, with some salient property of the source meaning.

b. Hence, an interpretation in terms of the source meaning is ruled out.

c. The target meaning now provides the only possible interpretation.

d. Unlike conventional meanings, meanings appearing in switch contexts have to be supported by a specific context (or cluster of contexts).” (Heine 2002: 85)

II. Switch contexts


25

• Swahilitaka: ‘want’ (lexical)> proximate aspect

(grammatical)

(5) M-tiu-na- taka ku- angukaC3- tree C3- PRES- PROX INF- fall‘the tree is about to fall’ (Heine

2002: 88)(C3 = noun classifier)

II. Switch contexts


26

Switch contexts in FDG

The interaction of Components in the production of Swahili Mti unataka kuanguka.

Gram

mat

ical C

ompo

nent

Conceptual Com ponent Describe the falling of the tree as an imminent event

Contextual Com ponent Form ulation

Encoding

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL

RL: (pi:…(prox fci)…(pi))


tree = inanimate entity


inanim ate entity

= event 1

An extended FDG model of grammaticalization

27

I. Bridging contexts: inferential meaningGrammatical Comp. Contextual Comp.

source meaning + necessary conditions →target meaning(linguistic and/or contextual)

II. Switch contexts: conventionalization of the inferenceGrammatical and/or Contextual Comp. Grammatical Comp.

necessary conditions (ling. and/or context.)→ new IL or RL operatorGrammatical Component onlyfully grammaticalized operator (unconstrained)

“The target meaning no longer needs to be supported by the context that gave rise to it; it may be used in new contexts.”(Heine 2002: 85)

III. Full conventionalization: grammatical meaning

28

3. Applying the model

The dataReal data sources• Parasol (www.parasol.unibe.ch)

Waldenfels (2006, 2011)

• Intercorp (www.korpus.cz/intercorp/)

Čermák and Rosen (2012)•ASPAC (http://www.uva.nl/over-de-uva/organisatie/ medewerkers/content/b/a/a.a.barentsen/a.a.barentsen.html)

Secondary sourcesAcademic and descriptive literature

29

30

Source meaning: (fut ep) → Target meaning: (epist p)

• Bulgarian

(6) Нося ти нещо тук… може по няко време да съм седнал отгоре, ама на вкус щее добра.

but PREP taste FUT COP.IPF.PRES.3Sgood.FS

“Got summat fer yeh here – I mighta [=might have] sat on it at some point, but it'll taste all right.” (ASPAC)

Lit. ‘but at the taste it will be good’


31The interaction of Components in the production of (...) ама на вкус ще е добра.


Contextual Com

ponent

Target m eaning

Gram

matica

l Com

ponent

Discoursal Context A

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL: (AI: [(F: DECL (F))…(CI)] (AI))


RL: (pi: (fut epi: (–telicei:–е добра на вкус–(ei) (epi)) (pi))


RL: (epist pi: (epi: (–telicei:–е добра на вкус –(ei)) (epi) (pi))

Encoding

Short-term knowledge

Truth of p will be verified

Short-term contextual knowledge The truth of p will be (im m ediately) verified

Conceptual Com ponent Express belief that the cake tastes good; Do so by affirming that this will be the case in the future.

RL: (pi: (fut epi: (–telice:– n opqr t uvwx –(ei)) (epi)) (pi))

Form ulation Prim itives –telice

32

New operator: (epist p)

• Bulgarian

(7) A – Носите ли ключа му, сър?B – Тук някъде щеда е — отговори here

somewhere EPIST COMPL COP.PRES.IPF.3SХагрид и взе да изпразва джобовете си върху преградата.

A – “You have his key, Sir?”B – “Got it here somewhere,’ said Hagrid, and he started emptying his pockets onto the counter […].” (ASPAC)Lit. ‘it will be here somewhere’


33


The interaction of Components in the production of Bulgarian Тук някъде ще да е.

Gr

amm

atica

l Com

pone

nt

Conceptual Com ponent Express belief that

the key is here somewhere

Contextual Com ponent

Encoding

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL

RL: (epist pi: (epi:–е тук някъде–(epi) (pi))

Short-term contextual knowledge

The truth of p will be (im m ediately) verified

Short-term knowledge The truth of p will be (im m ediately) verified

Form ulation

34

Fully grammaticalized operator: (epist p)

• Greek, English

(8) Μά είναι τόσο ωραία τώρα στήν Κλιάζμα [...]. Τώρα πού θά

now RELEPIST

κελαϊδούν καί τ’ αηδόνια έκεϊ.sing.NONPAST.IPF.3PL and DEF.N.PLnightingale.N.PL there

“It must be nice out at Klyazma now,’ […]. ‘I expect the nightingales are singing there now.” (Parasol)

Lit. ‘now even the nightingales will be singing there’

Grammatical meaning in FDG

35


Grammatical representation of Greek Τώρα πού θά κελαϊδούν καί τ’αηδόνια έκεϊ.

Gram

mat

ical C

ompo

nent

Conceptual Com ponent Express belief that the nightingales

are singing on the Klyazma

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL

RL: (epist pi: (epi:– τώρα κελαϊδούν καί τ’αηδόνια έκεϊ–(epi) (pi))

Form ulation

Encoding

36

Source meaning: (fut ep) → Target meaning: (mit F)

• Italian

(9) Ebbene [...], le confesserò una cosa, oggi

you.POL.DAT confess.FUT.1SINDEF.FS thing

ho deciso di assumere le sembianze di una mia paziente, è per questo che sono vestito così.

“Well [...], I will confess something to you: today I have decided to disguise myself as one of my patients, that’s why I am dressed like this.” (Intercorp, my transl.)


37The interaction of Components in the production of Italian Le confesserò una cosa: (...).


Contextual Com

ponent

Target m eaning

Gram

matica

l Com

pone

nt Discoursal Context

A

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL: (AI: [(FI: DECL (FI))…(CI)] (AI))

IL: (AI: [(FI: DECL (FI))…(CI)] (AI))

RL: (pi: (fut epi:–le confesserò una cosa–(epi) (pi))

IL: (AI: [(m it FI: DECL (FI))…(CI)] (AI))

RL: (pi: (epi:–le confesso una cosa–(epi) (pi))

Encoding

Conceptual Com ponent Attenuate the illocutionary force of the discourse act; Do so by locating the event in the future

RL: (pi: (fut epi:–le confesserò una cosa–(epi) (pi))

Form ulation

38

New operator: (mit F)• French, Swedish(10) Je vous dirai que je suis un peu

I 2.PL.DAT say.FUT.1S COMPL ICOP.PRES.1S a bitdéçu.disappointed.MS“I’ll admit I am a bit disappointed.” (Rocci

2000: 242, my Lit. ‘I will tell you’translation)

(11) Jag skabe att få Y.I FUT beg.INF COMPL get.INF y“approximately: ‘I would like to have Y.’”

(Brumark 2003: 12) Lit. ‘I will beg to get Y’


Gram

mati

cal

Comp

onen

t

39


Encoding

IL: (AI: [(mit FI: dire (FI)) …] (AI))

RL: (pi: (epi:–je suis un peu déçu–(epi)) (pi))

Formulation

Necessary condition for a mitigative interpretation of the French future in Je vous dirai que je suis un peu deçu: performative verb (dire) in the head of (F).

40

Fully grammaticalized operator: (mit F)

• Lithuanian, English

(12) Atleiskit, ne-patikė-siu, —tarė forgive.IMPER.2S.POLNEG.believe.FUT.1S say.PAST.3S

Volandas, — ne-galimasdaiktas.

Woland.NOM NEG.possible.MS.NOMthing.MS.NOM

“Forgive me, but I don’t believe you,’ Woland replied, ‘that cannot be.” (Parasol)

Lit. ‘I won’t believe’


41


Grammatical representation of Lithuanian Atleiskit, ne-patikė-siu (...).

Gram

mat

ical C

ompo

nent

Conceptual Com ponent Attenuate the illocutionary force of the discourse act

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL: (AI:[ (m it FI: DECL (FI))…] (AI))

RL: (pi: (epi: (neg ei:–patikėti– (ei)): (epi)) (pi))

Form ulation

Encoding

42

4. Implications and Conclusions

43

(Heine 2002: 85):“Bridging contexts may, but need not, give rise to conventional grammatical meanings.”

FDG:

Inferential meanings with lower scope than the respective source meaning will not grammaticalize into new operators.

Predicting grammaticalization

44

Source meaning: (fut ep) → Target meaning: (intent fc)

• Greek(13) Απόψε, λοιπόν, θα περάσω την

tonight then FUT go-through.NONPAST.PFV.1S DET.FS.ACCκαταπακτή. Ό τι κι αν πείτε εσείς οι δύο, δεν πρόκειται να με trapdoor.FSσταματήσετε!

“I'm going through that trapdoor tonight and nothing youtwo say is going to stop me!” (ASPAC)Lit. ‘I will go through the trapdoor’


45

The interaction of Components in the production of Απόψε, λοιπόν, θα περάσω την καταπακτή.


Contextual Component

Target m eaning

Gram

matica

l Com

pone

nt

Discoursal Context A

Output Com ponent

Articulation

IL: (AI: [(F: DECL (F))…(CI:[… (RI:[+S, -A]) ...] (CI))] (AI))

IL: (AI: [(F: DECL (F))…(CI: [… (RI: [+S, +A]) ...] (CI))] (AI))

RL: (pi: (fut epi:– περνώ την καταπακτή–epi) (pi)))

IL: (AI:[(DECL (F))…(CI: [… (RI: [+S, -A])] (CI))] (AI))

RL: (pi:…(intent fci– περνώ την καταπακτή –(fci) (pi))

Encoding


controlled action

Encyclopedic knowledge going through the trapdoor = controlled action

Conceptual Com ponent Express intention to go through the trapdoor; Do so indirectly, by affirming that S will go through the trapdoor.

RL: (pi: (fut epi:– περνώ την καταπακτή–(epi) (pi))

Form ulation

46

Source meaning: (fut ep) → Target meaning: (intent fc)


47

• The scope hierarchy postulated by FDG allows us to predict which inferential meanings may develop into new grammatical meanings and which should not, in principle, do so.

Conclusions• An extended FDG model allows for a

formal representation of the whole process of grammaticalization:1. Bridging context: inferential meaning2. Switch context: new grammatical operator3. Full conventionalization: fully grammaticalized operator

thank you!

The interaction of Components in an FDG account of grammaticalization (International Workshop on "The Grammaticalization of Tense, Aspect, Mood and Modality from a Functional Perspective",

Documents