| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910787070703321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Grammaticalization - theory and data / / edited by Sylvie Hancil, University of Rouen ; Ekkehard König, Free University Berlin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam, Netherlands ; ; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , 2014 |
|
©2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (301 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Grammar, Comparative and general - Grammaticalization |
Linguistic change |
Computational linguistics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and indexes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Grammaticalization - Theory and Data; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Acknowledgements ; Introduction; Part 1. General and theoretical issues; Part 2. Case studies; References; Acquisition-based and usage-based explanations of grammaticalisation; 1. Generative vs. functional approaches; 2. Integration: Performance and parametrisation; 3. Case examples; 3.1 Romance futures; 3.2 German perfect (cf. Öhl 2009a); 3.3 Remarks on the auxiliation of the copula; 4. Conclusion; References; Grammaticalization and explanation; 1. Introduction; 2. A background of consensus |
3. Arguments against the explanatory potential of grammaticalization4. In defense of the explanatory potential of grammaticalization; 5. Unidirectionality, the process question, and reductionism; Unidirectionality; Process vs. Processes; Reductionism; 6. Concluding remarks; References; The perfectivization of the English perfect; 1. Introduction; 2. The perfectivisation of the HAVE-perfect - prototypical grammaticalization?; 3. The changing perfect in English; a. HAVE-perfects with definite past time adverbials; b. Narrative HAVE-perfects |
4. An increase in HAVE-perfect with past time adverbials?5. Which |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
English are we discussing?; 6. Conclusion; References; Explaining language structure; 1. Introduction; 2. Questions; 3. Reconstruction; 4. Conclusions; Acknowledgements; Abbreviations; References; Toward a constructional framework for research on language change; 1. Introduction; 2. The main features of the constructionalization model; 3. A constructional approach to grammaticalization; 4. A constructional approach to lexicalization; 5. Major similarities and differences between contentful and procedural constructionalization |
6. The value added of a constructional approachData Bases; References; Grammaticalization of Polish mental predicate prefixes; 1. Introduction; 2. Grammaticalization; 3. Prefix semantics and its contribution to the meaning of the mental verb; 4. Classification of prefixes into pure perfectivizers and lexical prefixes: A case study on the verb myśleć 'to think'; 5. Conclusions; References; More thoughts on the grammaticalization of personal pronouns; 1. Introduction; 2. Referential shifting from third to second person: Heine and Song (2010, 2011) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Mulder and Thompson (2006, 2008) point out that the final hanging but ([X but]) developed from initial but (X [but Y]) through a sequence of formal reanalyses, and insightfully observe the functional and formal parallelism between the development of the hanging type of final but and the final particalization of the Japanese subordinator -kedo. The present article demonstrates that but (and and as well) can perform a terminal bracketing function and serve as functional subordinators in spoken American English, and that they behave like final particles when the sentences are truncated. Although |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |