The term ‘degrammaticalization’, originally coined by Lehmann in 1982 for a supposedly non-existent phenomenon, soon came to be applied to a number of often entirely different changes. Since such ‘counterexamples’ pose a potential challenge to the unidirectionality of grammaticalization, they have been the focus of much attention from grammaticalizationists and grammaticalization critics alike. While the former have attempted to dismiss them as insignificant, the latter have tended to over-emphasize their relevance. Much of the debate on degrammaticalization is rooted in different understandings of what degrammaticalization entails, or what it should entail. This paper proposes a descriptive framework which will restrict the number of potential examples of degrammaticalization, while at the same time subdividing them into three clearly distinguishable subtypes.
2017. Towards a morphosyntactic analysis of -ish. Word Structure 10:1 ► pp. 54 ff.
Sapp, Christopher & Dorian Roehrs
2016. Head-to-Modifier Reanalysis: The Rise of the Adjectival QuantifierVieland the Loss of Genitive Case Assignment. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 89 ff.
Wall, Albert & Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta
2015. The Impact of Contact Languages on the Degrammaticalization of the Hebrew Definite Article. Journal of Jewish Languages 3:1-2 ► pp. 283 ff.
Bolly, Catherine
2010. Flou phraséologique, quasi-grammaticalisation et pseudo marqueurs de discours : un no man’s land entre syntaxe et discours ?. Linx :62-63 ► pp. 11 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.