THE ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN A THEORY OF GRAMMATICALIZATION
THE ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISCOURSE MARKERS IN A THEORY OF GRAMMATICALIZATION
复制标题
语法化理论中话语标记发展的作用
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Traugott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Traugott
本文以话语标记语的发展为例，讨论了语法、语用和语义之间的相互作用，以及它们在语法化理论中的作用，特别是语法化的单向性。名词性倾向（名词性介词>格）和动词性倾向（主要动词>时、体、语气标记）是语法化理论的斯台普斯。本文认为，应进一步增加句内标记语>句内标记语>话语助词（话语标记语是其中的一个子类型）。在某些语言中，如英语，这种倾向增加了句法的自由度和范围，因此违反了语法化经常涉及的连接和缩小范围的原则。尽管如此，它还是说明了早期语法化的一系列其他长期被证明的结构特征，特别是非范畴化、语音还原和泛化;它还说明了一些最近被认识到的特征，特别是语用强化和主观化。我认为这些特征对于语法化来说是显著的，但是句法自由度和范围的减少不应该被认为是显著的。此外，我认为语法化是词汇材料在高度受限的语用和形态句法语境中变得合乎语法的过程，换句话说，具有特定句法功能的词汇材料开始参与语言的结构结构，特别是其形态句法结构。导致语法化的机制是局部再分析。我们应该如何看待这种局部再分析及其与类比和扩展的关系，这是最近许多研究的主题（例如，Hopper和Traugott，1993：Chap. 3，Roberts 1993，塔博尔1994，Harris and Campbell 1995：Chap. 4，Vincent 1997）。我的兴趣不在机制上，而主要在过程上--句法和语义的相互作用，结构和使用的相互作用--这些首先播下了重新分析和类比的种子。“语法化是词汇材料在高度受约束的语用和形态句法语境中成为语法材料的过程”是一个单向的陈述，因为它预测语法材料不会成为词汇材料。其他与这里所采用的功能性表述不同的表述也是如此。例如，在他的研究历史的habere助动词在浪漫在GB框架内，罗伯茨纳入语法化下的语法优化：历时再分析[的词汇中心作为功能中心]是由操作的最小努力策略在收购。从真实的意义上说，历时再分析导致了语法的局部简化（Roberts 1993：251）。就像任何好的假设一样，单向性被用作判断某个变化X是否是语法化的一个案例。一些
This paper concerns some interactions between syntax, pragmatics, and semanticsexemplified by the development of the Discourse Markers indeed, in fact , besides , and what rolethey might play in a theory of grammaticalization, especially of the unidirectionality ofgrammaticalization.Nominal clines (nominal adposition > case) and verbal clines (main verb > tense, aspect,mood marker) are staples of grammaticalization theory. I will argue that a further cline: Clause-internal Adverbial > Sentence Adverbial > Discourse Particle (of which Discourse Markers are asubtype) should be added to the inventory. In some languages like English this cline involvesincreased syntactic freedom and scope, and therefore violates the principles of bonding andreduced scope frequently associated with grammaticalization. It nevertheless illustrates a clusterof other long-attested structural characteristics of early grammaticalization, specificallydecategorialization, phonological reduction, and generalization; it also illustrates a number ofmore recently recognized characteristics, especially pragmatic strengthening and subjectification. Iwill suggest that these characteristics should be considered salient to grammaticalization, butdecrease in syntactic freedom and scope should notFurthermore, I will argue that grammaticalization is the process whereby lexical materialin highly constrained pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical, in otherwords that lexical material in specifiable syntactic functions comes to participate in the structuraltexture of the language, especially its morphosyntactic constructions. The mechanism that bringsabout particular instances of grammaticalization is local reanalysis. How we should think of thislocal reanalysis and its relation to analogy and extension has been the topic of much recentresearch (e.g. Hopper and Traugott 1993: Chap. 3, Roberts 1993, Tabor 1994, Harris andCampbell 1995: Chap. 4, Vincent 1997). My interest here is not in mechanisms but primarily inthe processes--the interactions of syntax with semantics, of structure with use--that sow the seedsfor reanalysis and analogy in the first place."Grammaticalization is the process whereby lexical material in highly constrainedpragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts becomes grammatical" is a unidirectional statement, in sofar as it predicts that grammatical material will not become lexical. So are other formulations indifferent traditions from the functional one adopted here. For example, in his study of the historyof the habere auxiliary in Romance within a GB framework, Roberts subsumes grammaticalizationunder optimization of grammars:Diachronic Reanalysis [of a lexical head as a functional head] is driven by theoperation of the Least Effort Strategy in acquisition. There is a real sense thenin which Diachronic Reanalysis leads to a local simplification in a grammar(Roberts 1993:251)).Indeed, unidirectionality in various forms has been one of the strongest hypotheses associatedwith grammaticalization theory. Like any good hypothesis, unidirectionality has been used as agatekeeper to assess whether some change X is or is not a case of grammaticalization. Some