Could be, might be, maybe : Mechanisms of grammaticalization in synchronic use and perception
Lorenz, David LU
(2023)
In Studies in Language Companion Series
232.
p.124-146
- Abstract
- In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it) could/might be (that) in English are potential candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The question is whether shorter forms (here, it-omission) are preferred in potentially grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause ((it) could be this is correct). I first summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of it-omission are found in critical context across... (More)
- In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it) could/might be (that) in English are potential candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The question is whether shorter forms (here, it-omission) are preferred in potentially grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause ((it) could be this is correct). I first summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of it-omission are found in critical context across items (could be, might be) and register (spoken, informal writing). A ‘continuous shadowing’ experiment partly confirms this finding but also shows that speakers/hearers are both more flexible and more conservative with could/might be than with maybe / it may be that. The findings suggest that grammaticalizing contexts have an immediate effect on formal reduction even in the absence of change, and that language users have an active intuition for emerging variational patterns. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/839c1a88-5295-4c14-ab2d-178ac03283ab
- author
- Lorenz, David
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023-06-13
- type
- Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- potential grammaticalization, synchronic usage, cognitive mechanisms of grammaticalization, epistemic phrases, adverbialization, morphological erosion
- host publication
- Different Slants on Grammaticalization
- series title
- Studies in Language Companion Series
- editor
- Hancil, Sylvie and Tantucci, Vittorio
- volume
- 232
- pages
- 23 pages
- publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- ISSN
- 0165-7763
- ISBN
- 9789027213754
- 9789027252814
- DOI
- 10.1075/slcs.232.05lor
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 839c1a88-5295-4c14-ab2d-178ac03283ab
- date added to LUP
- 2023-11-05 17:26:52
- date last changed
- 2023-11-08 07:18:33
@inbook{839c1a88-5295-4c14-ab2d-178ac03283ab,
abstract = {{In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it) could/might be (that) in English are potential candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The question is whether shorter forms (here, it-omission) are preferred in potentially grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause ((it) could be this is correct). I first summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of it-omission are found in critical context across items (could be, might be) and register (spoken, informal writing). A ‘continuous shadowing’ experiment partly confirms this finding but also shows that speakers/hearers are both more flexible and more conservative with could/might be than with maybe / it may be that. The findings suggest that grammaticalizing contexts have an immediate effect on formal reduction even in the absence of change, and that language users have an active intuition for emerging variational patterns.}},
author = {{Lorenz, David}},
booktitle = {{Different Slants on Grammaticalization}},
editor = {{Hancil, Sylvie and Tantucci, Vittorio}},
isbn = {{9789027213754}},
issn = {{0165-7763}},
keywords = {{potential grammaticalization; synchronic usage; cognitive mechanisms of grammaticalization; epistemic phrases; adverbialization; morphological erosion}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{06}},
pages = {{124--146}},
publisher = {{John Benjamins Publishing Company}},
series = {{Studies in Language Companion Series}},
title = {{Could be, might be, maybe : Mechanisms of grammaticalization in synchronic use and perception}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.05lor}},
doi = {{10.1075/slcs.232.05lor}},
volume = {{232}},
year = {{2023}},
}