Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:1 (2017) ► pp.1–32

Constructions, grammatical status and morphologization

| Goldsmiths University of London
This paper critically explores the question of what it means for a construction to be grammatical. The paper engages with some of the observations made in the grammaticalization literature, that elements in grammatical constructions undergo morphologization, and aims to show that grammatical status and morphologization need not be aligned. A number of parameters along which the grammatical status of a multiword expression can vary are proposed and data illustrating different aspects of these parameters are discussed in detail. The data are used to argue that grammatical status is complex and multifaceted and linked not only to the formal properties of a construction, but also to its semantics and the relationship it has with other grammatical forms (e.g. inflected forms) in a given language.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical status
  • 3.Different grammatical status, different morphosyntactic properties
  • 4.Equal grammatical status, different morphosyntactic properties
  • 5.Paradigmatic organization
  • 6.Additional meanings
  • 7.Relationships with inflected forms
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.41.1.01pop
References (59)
References
Ackerman, Farrell & Gregory Stump. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expressions. In Louisa Sadler & Andrew Spencer (eds.), Projecting morphology [Stanford Studies in Morphology and the Lexicon], 111–157. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Mark Lindsay. 2015. Partial organization in languages: la langue est un système où la plupart se tient. In Sandra Augendre, Graziella Couasnon-Torlois, Déborah Lebon, Clément Michard, Gilles Boyé & Fabio Montermini (eds.), Proceedings of the Décembrettes 8th International Conference on Morphology, CNRS & Université Toulouse.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2008. ‘Degrammaticalization’ versus typology. In Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, 45–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Avgustinova, Tania. 1994. On Bulgarian verbal clitics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21.29–47.Google Scholar
Banova, Savelina. 2005. Bălgarskijat glagol: praktičesko pomagalo. Sofia: Sofijski universitet “Kliment Oxridski”, Departament za ezikovo obučenie -ICS, Izdatelstvo D-r Ivan Bogorov.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25(1). 63–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Pollet Samvellian. 2015. The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian. Journal of Linguistics 51(2). 327–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Gert Webelhuth. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, 141–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent & Carol Chapman. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996, 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1). 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina, Greville Corbett, Gergana Popova & Andrew Spencer. 2002. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 233–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čakărova, Krasimira. 2001. On the issue of the paradigmatic nature of some disputable analytical verbal structures in the Modern Bulgarian language or “boundary areas” in grammar. In 10 godini burgaski svoboden universitet. jubilejna naučna konferencija s meždunarodno učastie “universitetât prez tretoto xiljadoletie”, vol. 41, 139–154. Burgas. Available at [URL] (accessed July 7, 2009).Google Scholar
. 2009. Imperativăt v săvremennija bălgarski ezik. Plovdiv: Izdatelstvo “Pigmalion”.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83(1). 8–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems. Morphology 21(2). 445–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Elisabeth M. 2004. Imam (‘have’) plus past passive participle in the Bulgarian Erkeč dialect. In Ronelle Alexander & Vladimir Zhobov (eds.), Revitalizing Bulgarian dialectology, vol. 2 University of California International and Area Studies Collection, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 2008. Clitic placement, prosody, and the Bulgarian verbal complex. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 16(1). 91–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1976. Vâznikvane na novi složni glagolni formi sâs spomagatelen glagol ‘imam’. In Petâr Pašov & Ruselina Nicolova (eds.), Pomagalo po bălgarska morfologija. Glagol., 294–311. Sofia: Izdatelstvo “Nauka i izkustvo”. Abridged and reprinted from Izvestija na Instituta po bâlgarski ezik, vol. 51, 1957.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. & L. Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization ‘theory’. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization, 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2004. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Kramer, Christina E. 2003. Macedonian: A course for beginning and intermediate students, 2nd edn. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32(2). 152–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Cecilia Robustelli. 2000. A reference grammar of modern Italian. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Manova, Stela. 2006. Paradigm linkage and Bulgarian verb inflection. Paper presented at the First Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society , September 2006, University of Indiana, Bloomington.
Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2006. The syntax of compound tenses in Slavic. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics dissertation.Google Scholar
Mirčev, Kiril. 1976. Za sâčetanijata na glagol imam + minalo stradatelno pričastie v balgarski ezik. In Petâr Pašov & Ruselina Nicolova (eds.), Pomagalo po balgarska morfologija. Glagol., 565–567. Sofia: Izdatelstvo ‘Nauka i izkustvo’. First published in Balgarski ezik, vol. 23, no. 6, 1973.Google Scholar
Nicolova, Ruselina. 2008. Bălgarska gramatika: Morfologija. Sofia: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Oxridski”.Google Scholar
Pitsch, Hagen. 2010. Complex verbs between syntax and morphology in Bulgarian. Russian Linguistics 34(3). 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popova, Gergana. 2010. Features in periphrastic constructions. In Anna Kibort & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, 166–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popova, Gergana & Andrew Spencer. 2013. Relatedness in periphrasis: A paradigm-based perspective. In Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, vol. 180 Proceedings of the British Academy, 191–225. Oxford University Press/British Academy.Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine. 1986. Aspects of Bulgarian syntax: Complementizers and WH constructions. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Andrew Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simov, Kiril & Sia Kolkovska. 2002. Interpretacija na da-konsktrukciite v oporna frazova gramatika, vol. Proceedings of the 6th National Slavistic Readings: Slavic studies at the beginning of the 21st century. Traditions and expectations . Sofia, 26–27 April 2002, Sofia.
Smirnickij, A. I. 1959. Morfologija anglijskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izkatel’stvo literatury na inostrannyx jazykax.Google Scholar
Smirnickij, Aleksandr I. 1956. Analitičeskie formy. Voprosy jazykoznanija 21. 41–52.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99(2). 279–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, vol. 7 Interface Explorations, 249–282. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Sentence negation and periphrasis. In Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, vol. 180 Proceedings of the British Academy, 227–266. Oxford: Oxford University Press/British Academy. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Anna Luís. 2012a. The canonical clitic. In Dunstan Brown, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 123–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Anna Luis. 2012b. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldback & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from romance inflectional morphology, 358–81. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. a case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5(2). 183–2017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomič, Olga Mišeska. 2004. The syntax of the Balkan Slavic future tenses. Lingua 114(4). 517–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. A grammar of Macedonian. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 19–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Paul J. Hopper. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trifonov, Ju. 1908. Značenie na složnite (opisatelni) bădešti vremena v novobălgarskija ezik. Periodičesko spisanie 9(10). 1–40.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2010. Preface. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincent, Nigel & Kersti Börjars. 2010. Grammaticalization and models of language. In Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 279–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiemer, Björn. 2014. Quo Vadis grammaticalization theory? Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica 48(2). 425–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xaralampiev, Ivan. 2001. Istoričeska gramatika na bâlgarskija ezik. Veliko Târnovo: Faber.Google Scholar