Gedanken zur Grammatikalisierung (frei zusammenhängende Bemerkungen)

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LII (2005), 119-156 Thoughts on grammaticalization (freely related remarks)’ BOHUMIL VYKYPEL Ustav pro jazyk éesky AV CR The present paper deals with the notion of grammatical elements of language (as opposed to lexical elements). Two conceptions ofgrammaticity are distinguished: the one concentrating on content and the one concentrating both on content and on expression (i.e., concentrating on signs). Further, the concept of grammaticalization formulated by Christian Lehmann is compared with Prague School typology. In conclusion, a few remarks are made on the relationship between grammaticalization theory and the general linguistic method. 1. One of the topics with which general linguists are frequently dealing nowadays seems to be the so-called to be grammaticalization. In a sense, the programmatic work of CurisTIAN LEHMANN Thoughts on grammaticalization is known to be at the beginning of this renewed interest. It was republished some time ago (Lehmann 2002), and I take this opportunity to reflect on grammaticalization. Lehmann- 's book is unfortunately a fragment (and the second part, which has been submitted, looks even more interesting, especially from the point of view of general linguistics...), yet it is undoubtedly the most theoretically consistent contribution to the problem and, in general, an all-round interesting and instructive book. And as for the fragmentary character, none less than Louis Hjelmslev (1968: 114) wrote that nothing is more beautiful for the scientist than to see before him what is still to be created. Before the actual paper, however, two remarks are made (partly as an application): 1.1. When dealing with the concept of typology, Petr Sgall (1971) divided the differences between the linguistic disciplines that call themselves typology into two main groups: those that consist in the use of a single word (typology) for different terms, and those that consist in the use of a single word (typology) for different conceptions of the same underlying intuitive term. Something similar happens with the term grammatizitat: the first case treated by Sgall occurs in the (also vividly described by Lehmann 2002: § 2.1.) difference between the,,American” concept of grammatizitat as the,,correctness* and the,,European”, in For linguistic correction and content inspiration I thank Markus Giger (Prague). 120 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL in which the grammatical entities are considered as opposed to the lexical ones; the second case is encountered in the difference between the different conceptions of the European concept of grammaticitat. In the following, I will —as Lehmann —naturally deal only with the second case (even though I am Place unexpectedly to the first also come). In general, the question arises, why should one actually deal with the grammaticity and the grammaticalization at all. A preliminary answer may be: Because they represent one of the linguistic descriptive and explanatory instruments. I will come back to this later. 2. One of the repeatedly —sometimes more, sometimes less —e.g. in the European linguistic tradition is the peculiar difference between the so-called lexical and the so-called. grammatical entities of language: It is believed that some elements of language —be it (depending on the general Conception of the language at the respective researchers) the signs, the contents of the signs or components of the contents of the signs —to be able to divide into these two large groups or even not. In general, the theories of grammaticization can be divided into two large groups. Some researchers look for their criteria of grammaticization only in the plan of content (however this is understood), others also look at how the content elements to be examined are printed. 2.1 As will be shown later, it is important in our context to mention that one of the linguists who belong to the first group is PETR SGALL. Sgall's formulation of the so-called. typological dominants (cf. most recently Sgall 2004) consists in the fact that certain elements of the so-called the tektogrammatic level of the functional-generative description —the grammatical elements —are expressed differently in the individual language types, so that the expression of the grammatical elements is not relevant for their definition as grammatical. The part of the tectogrammatical level, which comprises the grammatical elements, has been expanded by Sgall. Then he brought here only the so-called. syntactic values or functors (Sgall 1979: 8, 10), later he also referred to the so-called morphological values or grammatemes (Sgall, Haji¢ova, Panevova 1986: 271), finally he speaks tiber the grammatical part of the tectogrammatic level, the morphological values or grammatemes, the syntactic values or functiontors, the notion of valence and the so-called current structure (functional sentence perspective) (cf. Sgall 1992a: 204). This grammatical part is compared to the lexems. The expression of grammatical elements can therefore be fivefold, and on the basis of it five types of language are established as constructs: 1. expression by the sequence of phoneme successions (morphems) which express the non-grammatical functions = the polysynthetic type; 2. same as the non-grammatical functions, i.e. by phoneme successions (morphes), whereby these occur in the form of words, i.e. the successions expressing the non-grammatical functions are not appended = the isolating type; 3. the same as the non-grammatical functions, i.e. by phonemic successions 121 (morphe), whereby these appear in the form of affixes, i.e. they are attached to the successions expressing the non-grammatical functions = the agglutinating type; 4. by variation (modification) of phonemic successions (morphems) which express the non-grammatical functions, whereby this variation occurs at the end (or, however, also at the beginning) of the successions = the flexion type; 5.by variation (modification) of phonemic successions (morphems- ), which express the non-grammatical functions, whereby this variation occurs within the successions = the introflexive type. As far as the definition of the grammatical elements of the tectogrammatical level is concerned, it is obvious that the elements or functions here referred to as grammatical correspond to one of the two pillars of ViLEM Matuesius- ’s linguistic creation, the act of,,kniepfung,, of the in-relationship-setting or the syntactic act, and Mathesius was indeed (perhaps mediated by the theory of language of Vladimir Skali¢ka) an important source of inspiration for Sgall. In the brilliantly simple conception of his “functional grammar”, Mathesius distinguished, as is well known, two fundamental acts, two “pillars”, through which every statement is formed: the act of naming or onomatological act and the act of linking, of putting into relation or syntactic act. The linguistic elements are then to be divided into two groups in their meaning (or content) aspect: those that primarily serve the onomatological act, and those that primarily serve the syntactic act. It is therefore necessary to describe how the language in question names and how it relates the named. Only afterwards can one deal with,,morphology“, which is understood as a doctrine concerning the grouping of linguistic means according to their formal affinity and therefore crosses through the two parts of language description, the doctrine concerning linguistic designation (onomatology) and the doctrine concerning the setting in relation (functional syntax). (Compare Mathesius 1929; 1936; 1975; Danes 2003.) Similar findings can be found in Louts HJELMsLev. Next, in his praglossematic period, Hjelmslev speaks vigorously of the difference between semantics and morphology. Die Semanteme sind die verbundenen Elemente, die Morpheme die verbindenden (Hjelmslev 1972: 52, 62; 1973: 85):,,It must be understood that the semantics are the elements that carry the meaning content of the sequence, and the morpheme the elements that form this meaning content in a certain grammatical way“ (Hjelmslev 1972: 52f.); the categories of semantics express unambiguously categories of notions (...) the categories of morpheme express unambiguously relations between notions“ (Hjelmslev 1928: 210);,,the morpheme indicates the relations between the semantimes* (Hjelmslev 1973: 87). One can see that Hjelmslev gets close to Mathesius: naming the semantics, “pinching” the morphemes, putting them in relationships (primary or secondary). Hjelmslev- 's later glossematic theory of language can be considered as a kind of formalization in this respect. Also in the glossematic Hjelmslev one finds a subdivision of the language elements which corresponds to the traditional subdivision into lexical and grammatical. In accordance with his theory of language, Hjelmslev presents these two basic groups both in the content plan and in the 122 | The 122nd Expression plan fixed, and the members of these categories are formed by the potential components of the characters or more precisely by non-expressive elements in the content plan and non-content elements in the expression plan. The naming of the categories has changed Hjelmslev. The characteristic by which these categories are defined has also changed, but again and again it has been a matter of —translated from the glossematic to a more generally perhaps more intelligible language— the potential (primary or secondary) ability of one (,,grammatical”) element to connect or to put into mutual relations the other (,,lexical”) elements. (See v.a. Hjelmslev 1959: 139-164; 1973: 243-254.) In our context, it is important that Hjelmslev finds his criterion of grammaticity only within the respective plan: the expression of the grammatical content elements is not relevant with regard to their definition, because it does not belong to language as the language structure (which is formed by the two planes), but to the use of language, namely its sign aspect. 2.2.In the second group of grammaticality theories mentioned above (§ 2) belongs, among others, the second linguist, who along with Sgall has further developed the Prager typological theory, JAROSLAV PopELA. Popela has formulated the typological dominants as an alternative to Sgall. The first property by which they are defined is the fact whether the type of grammatical signs is favorable or not. The positive applies to the isolating, agglutinating, flexing and introflexive type, the negative to the polysynthetic type. The “grammatical” types are thus divided according to two further characteristics, the accumulation of semen (content elements) in grammatical signs and the degree of fusion between the lexical and grammatical signs: in the isolating and agglutinating type there is no accumulation, while it occurs in the flective and introflexive type; the fusion is minimal in the isolating type, in the agglutinating gr6Ber, in the flexional still gr6Ber, and maximum in the introflexive type. (Vgl. Popela 1991, 1998.) It is therefore apparent that Popela’s conception of grammaticity, with which he works in his definition of the basic properties of language types, represents a grammaticity of signs. The polysynthetic type is not nongrammatical because it did not contain in its content plan the same or similar (grammatical) elements as the grammatical types, but because these elements in the polysynthetic type have no segmental or discrete expression: they are expressed either by word sequence or by semantic elements in grammatical functions. The non-grammaticality therefore refers to the sign aspect of language use, to the way of expressing certain selected content elements. The second view of the grammatical elements, which encompasses both the content and the expression, is found (in an implicit form) in the founder of Prague typology himself, VLADIMIR SKALICKA. When Skalicka, for example, criticizes older cases theories, he reproaches them, among other things, for not taking into account the fact that,,cases are formations which are in permanent contact with neighbouring formations. What one language expresses by means of case, another expresses by prepositions, adverbs, derivative prefixes, number and other means“ (Skali¢ka 1950: 47). | 123 The case is therefore considered as a certain form of expression, which contains certain sem (content elements) and fulfils certain criteria as to its structure. What does not meet these criteria is not a case (the form of expression expresses the unit of meaning and at the same time distinguishes it from the related forms that are not cases). According to the first conception of the grammatical elements, the case, on the other hand, is a certain element of content which —naturally, if it exists in the content plan of the language in question- —can be expressed differently in different languages. Skalicka, too, is forced to postulate the concept of case functions, which may be “shifted to prepositions or other formations” (a.a.O., 48). This fluctuation can also be found elsewhere in Skali¢ka. Within the framework of the description of the polysynthetic type, the general distinction between the basic and auxiliary linguistic elements is introduced: the former carry a meaning, the latter express the relationships between the former. The auxiliary elements, however, only exist if an expression of their own is assigned to them, and the polysynthetic type therefore has no auxiliary elements (see Skali¢ka 1979: 186, 189, 195). In another place it is said that the polysynthetic type also has a grammar (i.e. auxiliary elements), but these are expressed by lexical elements, namely by their order and by the fact that lexical elements appear in grammatical functions (cf. Skalicka 1955a: 16f., 18f.). For Skalicka, as for Popela, a grammatical element represents only such an element, which has a more or less discrete expression, i.e. is a sign, and in addition Skalicka also reports further properties of the expression for the assessment of a sign with regard to its grammaticity (cf. Skalicka 1960a; 1962a: 125f.; 1979: 83ff.). However, there is a fundamental need to define the notion of grammatical functions, because on the one hand it would be impossible to speak in the polysynthetic type of semantic subjects fulfilling grammatical functions, on the other hand it would be unclear which functions (meanings) are to be examined with regard to their grammaticity. Skali¢ka (1965) also offers such criteria for the identification of grammatical functions (meanings). According to him, the grammatical elements (signs) have three kinds of meaning: syntactic, abstract and inline. By their unifying function, the grammatical elements classify the lexical element they define into a class. On this function is based the constitutive property of the grammatical categories, namely the obligatoriness of their members: every lexical element, for which the corresponding grammatical category is relevant, must be provided with an element of the category in question. The syntactic meaning or function of a grammatical sign is that it refers to other designations, that it connects certain lexical elements with others; at the same time it can also indicate the character of this relationship. Finally, the abstract meaning makes a grammatical sign part of the designation: the grammatical sign modifies the meaning of the lexical element it determines. Secondarily, however, the grammatical element can also fulfill the syntactic function through its abstract meaning, which is the case with the appearance of the so-called "adjectives". congruence is the case. It is important to note that the abstract character of the 124 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL grammatical elements is relative, i.e. these are more abstract than semantically related lexical elements. Abstraction is the ability to capture more extensive semantic fields. The difference in abstractness between a lexical and a grammatical element with the same semantic basis is thus to be understood gradually — in contrast to the first two properties, which are based on a privative opposition. An instructive example of an unformalized theory of grammaticalization, i.e. one that was not constructed theoretically-immanent, but for a specific purpose (namely to explain the development of Indo-European flexion), can be found with the Indo-Germanist ADOLF Eruarr. The example is instructive because one can take Skali¢ka as a starting point and at the same time come to Skali¢ka at the end, and from such a perspective that sheds an explanatory light on the whole concept of grammaticalization. (For Erhart’s conception of grammaticalization, see Vykypél 2004a: 153-156 with appropriate references.) Erhart’s formulation of the properties of the grammatical elements is similar to that of Skaliéka (1965). Grammes are non-independent and are always bound to certain lexemes (i.e. are potentially classifying). Grammes are considerably simpler in terms of their meaning than lexemes (i.e. they are more abstract) and can also be fully formal, i.e. they only denote a syntactic relationship (i.e. they can be syntactic). The fact that the inventories of the grammes are usually closed is also connected with the simplicity. According to Erhart, the transformation of lexical elements into grammatical ones, i.e. the grammaticalization, has three phases: 1. loss of independence (the element begins to bind to another element), which can be accompanied by the simplification of the semantics of the element; 2. generalization, i.e. generalization and mandatory; 3. full formalization, i.e. the element has only a syntactic meaning. With these characteristics, which concern the plan of contents or at least can be related to it, can also be connected the characteristics, which concern the expression of the grammatical elements (signs). The abstract character of the grammatical elements (to which the syntacticity can also be assigned) is favourable to the small scope of their means of expression. The small volume is in turn favorable to the accumulation of grammars within a single sign, on the one hand, and to the synonymy and homonymy of grammatical signs on the other. The obligate character is favorable to the equivalent expression, i.e. the absence of so-called. Null formant incl. the so-called fixed word order, and also the binding of the expression of the grammatical elements, i.e. the expression by affixes or endings rather than by worder. This also includes congruence: If in a language the congruence in a higher Mabe comes into play, this means, among other things, that every word is forms of expression (endings) is obligately accompanied, which also concerns such words, which do not necessarily need this. The semantically abstract character and the small extent of the form of expression of the grammatical elements can be subsumed under the common concept of simplicity, and with simplicity is also connectable another property of the grammatical elements assumed by Erhart, namely, "the uniformity of the formation" of the forms of expression, i.e. these should only be TOOLS FOR GRAMMATICALISATION | 125 a type of signs formed (by worder, affixes, endings or introflexion, but not mixed). On the basis of the characteristics of the form of expression, Erhart even establishes three phases up to the full grammaticitat, in which the meanings to be observed, which correspond to the meanings of some lexical elements, are expressed differently: 1. the cryptogrammatical (expression by word sequence or freely applicable words); 2. the pragrammatical (word order and also affixes); 3. the semigrammatical (affixes, but also null formants; no congruence and cumulation- ). It is obvious that these phases can be compared with Skalika’s language types: the cryptogrammatical with the polysynthetic or isolating, the pragrammatical and the semigrammatical with the agglutinating. In any case, it can be noted that Erhart's characteristics of the grammatical elements are strikingly similar to those of the flexional type (in Skalika's typology). One can therefore also agree with Tomas Hoskovec (2001: 12): Erhart confronts the apories of the Indo-Germanic reconstructions with a special typological apparatus. He provokes with his hierarchical view, which places the Indo-European languages at the top of the grammaticalization pyramid and thus actually of the intellectualisation of the semantic relationship in language. Perhaps we can avoid misunderstandings if we consider that we look at the languages of the world through a magnifying glass that brings everything together in the focal point of the Indo-European languages, which are closest to us, in which we are most familiar: we always look at the world from somewhere. * In fairness, however, it must be said that also in the conception of grammaticity or grammaticalization, which finds its criteria both in content and in the plan of expression, i.e. the grammaticity of signs examined, criteria can be established that are not bound to the concrete character of the signifiant, i.e. are correlatable with the Prague typology. These criteria are two and have already been mentioned. One is the uniformity of the formation of the forms of expression: here it is indifferent whether grammatical functions are expressed by worders, affixes, endings, or introflexion, only the expression of the individual members of the category concerned should be the same. The second criterion is the absence of null formants: no member of a grammatical category should be expressed by a null formant; In other words, this means that the individual expressions of members of a grammatical category should be aquipollent to each other, not privative (cf. also Skali¢ka 1960a and Vykypél 2005: 210). 3. Now I finally come back to Christian Lehmann and his thoughts on grammaticalization. ; I limit myself here essentially to this book by Lehmann, although of course his other texts are also important for grammaticalization and what I have said so far and 126 | The 126th 3.1. It is obvious that Lehmann- ’s grammaticalization belongs to the second of the two groups mentioned above (§ 2), because what is to be examined with regard to grammaticalization are signs (cf. Lehmann 2002: VII, 109f.). It also follows that one has to proceed in this case as with the other grammaticalization theories from this group: First the relevant content elements have to be determined, and only then can signs, in which these content elements enter, be examined with regard to their grammaticity?. It is important that in the second step both sides of the language sign are considered and thus both the meaning and the expression of the relevant content elements are included in the grammaticalization parameters (cf. Lehmann 2002: chap. 4). In the words of Hjelmslev, certain content elements are taken out of the language structure and their fate in language use is followed, both in its substance aspect (the meaning of the content elements that form the signifié of a sign) and in its sign aspect (the expression of the content elements in the framework of a sign). At first glance, the first step, the determination of those elements of content that determine which signs are examined with regard to grammaticalization and which are not, might not seem inevitable: one simply applies the semantic criteria and the expressive criteria to the signs of language and determines which signs they fulfill and in what manner and which ones do not. There are, however, some indications that speak for the opposite. Secondly, here is what has already been indicated above (§ 2.2.): In the polysynthetic type or in languages with a clearly dominant polysynthetic type it would be impossible or difficult to distinguish between grammar and lexicon. It is not clear, for example, when a sign functions only as a verb and thus does not enter the grammaticalization channel and when it already functions as an adposition and thus stands at the beginning of grammaticalization (Lehmann 2002: 94; cf. also Haspelmath 1998: 328f.). Everything was potentially grammatical or, in Erhart's words, cryptogrammatical*; but if something is cryptic, one does not see it (and if one does not see something, one can hardly speak of it; and what one cannot speak of, one must keep silent about with Wittgenstein...). Another argument for the conviction that one must first determine which content categories are relevant for the examination of the signs co-formed by their members with regard to grammaticalization is provided by the concepts of renovation and innovation (Lehmann 2002: § 2.4.). Renovation presupposes the existence of a common content category, whose members are represented by signs that are at different points on the grammaticalization scale. The starting point of the Inwhat I want to say, illustrate. For the main theme of this contribution, the attempt to provisionally integrate the theory of grammaticalization into a further theoretical framework, it might however be sufficient to refer to this main work. I understand signs bilaterally as an inseparable connection of elements of the expression and the content plan (the elements of the two language plans as two parts of the language construction are potential components of language signs that belong to language use). Therefore, one can say that a content element (or of course an expression element) enters into a language character by (co-)forming it. (See also § 4.3., Remark I below.) NOVATION, in turn, constitutes the emergence of a grammatical content category (or, more precisely, of a content category whose members then form characters pursued in terms of grammaticalization), and one must therefore have a criterion on the basis of which the emergence of the category and its separation from the other content categories is decided: it is true that,,Latin had no grammatical category which corresponded to the French articles, so that nothing has been renovated by these“ (Lehmann 2002: 18), for Latin had only a corresponding lexical category, but the question arises how a lexical category such as the Latin demonstrative pronouns and a grammatical one such as the French article can be distinguished. If such a question does not seem relevant or important, then it is not clear what we are talking about and why when we talk about lexical and grammatical categories. Lehmann (2002: 111f., 150) also addresses the need for a content link between the differently grammaticalized signs when he speaks of the requirement of functional ancestry between the signs to be compared or of their common functional basis. It should be added that this applies both in-language, when comparing signs of a language with regard to grammaticalization, and in language comparison. 3.2. In general, there are two ways of comparing (cf. Vykypyl 2005: 195, 286): either on the basis of an external axiomatics, the Hjelmslev material, or on the basis of an internal axiomatics, i.e. a general,,,- panchronic* theory. The general theory that appears as the required starting point in the case of grammaticalization is a theory of content. This can also be expressed in such a way that by the theory of grammaticalization, a conception belonging to the second of the groups mentioned above (§ 2), one of the theories of grammaticity from the first of the two above groups is assumed. This presupposed theory can be Sgall’s functional-generative description with its tectogrammatical level, Mathesius’ functional linguistics with its two acts, or Hjelmslev’s theory of language with its content plan. The need for a general THEORIE DEs INHALTs can be seen in several examples. 3.2.1. For example, it may be argued that the clarity of the relations within a category that occurs in the grammaticalization parameter of paradigmaticity (Lehmann 2002: 118) depends fundamentally on the clarity of its description (to quote again from the Hjelmslev-- Brevier, “if a thing looks complicated, it is chiefly because it is looked upon in a complicated way”; Hjelmslev 1973: 120). It is similar to the homogeneity of the category as,,a certain amount of similarity among its members and of regularity in their differences“ (Lehmann 2002: 120): One can, for example, with Hjelmslev (1959: 157) find clear basic meanings even where none are usually seen’. : With the concept of the basic meaning, one also touches another problem. The difference between the basic meaning and the overall meaning can certainly be interpreted (with Lehmann 2002: 114) as one between two designations and taken metaphorically: 134 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL n nominal sentences of the type found, for example, in Hungarian (cf. also Giger, Vykypél 2001: 72f.). This means, on the one hand, that the copula can also be regarded as a content element, namely one from the category of Hjelmslev- 's extensive, i.e. safely verbal, "grammatical* content elements," and, on the other hand, that the expression of this function can be different, for example depending on which language type dominates in the respective language. It is important that the starting point must be a definition of this copula function or this copula content element, from which the observation of the signs into which it enters, with regard to their grammaticalization or typological diversity, can only be carried out. Even more interesting seems to be the nominalization and attribution (Lehmann 2002: §§ 3.3.2.-3.; cf. also Lehmann Ms.a: §§ 5.-6.). The possible interpretation of the attribution and the congruence that may be associated with it has already been discussed above (§ 3.2.6.) and cf. below (§ 3.3.2.). What the so-called. As far as nominalization is concerned, from the Hjelmslevian perspective it can be asserted that in the appearance of this dependence between two or more “verbal concepts” a content element called connective appears, which connects these two concepts as complex content elements or complexes of content elements (cf. Hjelmslev 1959: 165-191, Vykypél 2005: 76f., 232f.). The expression of this content element can be different. 1° It can only be a matter of the,,fixed sequence of words”, i.e. a certain sequence of,,main” and,,subordinate” sentences, from which then the mutual relationship of the sentences (i.e. the fact which is dependent on which) emerges. 2° There may be a word not specialized for this function, which in other contexts fulfills a lexical function. 3° There may be a word specialized for this function. 4° Finally, an affix may also occur. 1° occurs, for example, in Chinese, in which the temporal and conditional subjunctives stand before the main sentence as generally the determinants before the determinants, the object subjunctives on the other hand after the main sentence as generally the object after the subject and predicate, without the subjunctive having to be determined by a sign in both cases. 2° occurs, for example, in Vietnamese, in which final nouns are determined by the words dé or cho, which also ‘let, set’ resp. ‘give’ means can. 3° is the case of decent conjunctions and 4° is found in all so-called. Participles, infinitives, gerundia, etc. 1° and 2° can be evaluated as polysynthetic, 3° as isolative and 4° as agglutinative within the framework of Prague typology. For the flexional type of language one would expect the expression by means of an ending, but Skali¢ka (1979: 173-179) claims that the flexional type solves the problem of the second verb (which corresponds to the problem of nominalization) by means of richly developed subordinate sentences. At another point we, Markus Giger and I, nevertheless tried to show that this claim —like other so-called. syntactic characteristics within the framework of Skalika’s typology- —is not without problems (cf. Giger, Vykypél 2001: 72-79). In any case, we see here again (as in the case of the copula) that the levels of grammaticalization can be safely correlated with the types of the Prague typology. But that brings me to the subject of the following section. 135 NOTE: First of all, however, I would like to take this opportunity to add a small typological excursion. As soon as the dependence of,,sentences“ acquires a more or less discrete expression, the,,fixed word sequence“ (order of morphs) can be freed up for the expression of the current structure (the functional sentence perspective). The same applies to the sentence members themselves. There are many examples. When a Chinese causal subposition is determined by yinwéi ‘because- ’, it can also stand after the main sentence, especially if it is not a subject. In Indonesian, a word that performs the function of an indirect object must be after the verb and before the direct object; However, if it is determined by a preposition, it can also stand after the direct object. In English, the indirect object is used to indicate the present tense. Aus dem Englischen stammt ein Beispiel von Sgall (1988: 465): Mary moved from Chicago to Philadelphia vs. Mary moved to Philadelphia from Chicago. One can take these phenomena as an opportunity to reflect on the typological evaluation of the expression of the current structure (the functional sentence perspective). As mentioned above (§ 2.1.), Sgall counts the current sentence structure together with the functionors and grammatical subjects to the grammatical part of the tectogrammatical level, whose expression is consequently postulated as the dominant or basic property of the five language types. However, there are some ambiguities here. Thus, the expression by variation of lexical morpheme, i.e. by endings, forms the dominant of the flective type, but the actual articulation is expressed by sequence of lexical morpheme, which is however considered as the dominant of the polysynthetic type. The above examples from Chinese, Indonesian and English would mean that in the case of the expression of functions or grammatical functions (here cases and conjunction functions) by order of morpheme, the current articulation must be expressed differently, for example by intonation or certain constructions, but if the functions or grammatical functions are expressed by their own morpheme, then the current articulation is expressed by order of morpheme. It can be assumed that there is a kind of compensatory relationship between the expression of the functionators and grammar- -themes (the ‘proper grammar- *) on the one hand and that of the current structure on the other. However, the question arises whether this compensation to the constructs of the or whether it is a matter of the individual languages, which in Prague typology are known to be considered as hierarchical combinations of properties of different types. For example, the borrowed Japanese topicalization affix -wa can be referred to, which is found in the (allegedly) dominant agglutinative Japanese: here we have to do with the same (in this case an agglutinative) interpretation for the area of grammar and functions and each of the 8 For the current classification from a typological point of view, see also Sgall (1982) and Sgall, Hajicova, Panevova (1986: 241-244). On the concept of compensation when deducing properties of language types, cf. Skali¢ka (1966: 27). 9 136 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL to do with the current structure. Conversely, one could believe that the expression of the current structure by order of morpheme in dominant flexion languages represents a feature of the polysynthetic type. This brings us back to the twofold theoretical uncertainty of Prager’s typology: how can the types actually be constructed and how can the typological dominant of a language be determined? (See also Vykypél 2005: 197-203) A possible interpretation of the second question offers a hierarchization of the linguistic system with regard to its relevance for the determination of the single-language typological dominant: The most important thing would be, for example, the expression of functions and grammatical terms, or those of functions and then those of grammatical terms; after that the expression of the current structure will follow; Then came the areas of nomenclature (word formation), semantics, syntax and also that of phonology. 3.3. The theory of grammaticalization, i.e. a certain assessment of some signs, thus breaks down into two parts. In its “content aspect” it corresponds to a theory of content (see above § 3.2.). In its “sign aspect” it can be compared with the description of language use by Hjelmslev (both in its substantial and sign aspect; see above § 3.1.), with Mathesius’ morphology or with the description of the morphematic level by Sgall. However, it can be most directly compared with the PRAGER TyPoLociE, which can also be considered as a description of types of Hjelmslevan language use, Mathesiusan morphology or the connection between Sgall's tectogrammatical and morphematic level. Next, two general characteristics that grammaticalization and Prague typology have in common (and to which Markus Giger has drawn attention) can be pointed out. If one provisorily and approximately equates individual phases of grammaticalization with the Prague types, then two things become apparent: the fact that in one and the same language there are differently grammaticalized characters corresponds to the Prague thesis of the individual language as a combination of properties of several language types, and the fact that the parameters of grammaticalization with individual characters are differently strong corresponds to the fact that properties of several language types can also be combined within the framework of a single character. Concrete examples of the correlation between phases of grammaticalization and the Prague language types can be given on the ground. The agreements are numerous (cf. also Sgall 1992a: 205f., 1993a: 323, 1999: 31; Giger 2002: 46), I limit myself to only a few of them”. 3.3.1. For example, highly grammaticalized cases (Lehmann 2002: 76f.) exhibit characteristics of the flexional type: the formants accumulate several functions, are shorter, enter into congruence, are fused and accompanied by a root alteration. ‘0 On typology (however, predominantly of the prestructural precursor of Prague typology) from the point of view of grammarization theory cf. Lehmann (1985; 1986; 1987). 137 Perhaps most striking is the correlation in the area of syntagmatic cohesion, of binding (Lehmann 2002: § 4.3.2.). The stages of fusion between the lexical stem and the grammatical element (p. 132) correspond exactly to those of the Prague typology; the vague boundary between morphemes and the accumulation of functions in morphemes as characteristics of high grammaticalization (p. 137) correspond to properties of the flexion type. 3.3.2. in the section on binding coordination syntagms are also discussed (Lehmann 2002: 133f., 135f.). In coordination syntagms, content elements appear that are equal in relation to each other. If they are determined by another content element, it can either be expressed repeatedly for each of the content elements determined by it, or it can be expressed only once. The first way of expression is considered as a characteristic of a higher grammaticalization of the determining sign. The repetition of a sign also represents the essence of the so-called. Skali¢ka 1937): The repetition of a sign containing a certain content element expresses the dependence of one lexical content element on another. The congruence as an expression of such a dependency relationship occurs in the flective (or introflexive) type, while in the other types the relationship is expressed by apposition, i.e. fixed word sequence. In addition to what has already been mentioned above (§ 3.2.6.), namely that two different phenomena at the level of the signs, the congruence and the apposition, can be interpreted in the content plan in the same way, it becomes apparent here that the expression of the content relationship in question is relevant both for typology and for grammaticalization: the congruence and repetition of a sign is flexible and more grammaticalized, the apposition and non-repetition of a sign is inflexible and less grammaticalized. Again, the development of the flexion type is seen as a strengthening of grammaticalization. 3.3.3. The phenomena of attribution, pradication, nominalization or congruence discussed in §§ 3.2.6., 3.2.10., 3.3.2. can be described as certain syntagmatic relations in the content plan or as reflections of these relations or as content elements through which these relations are formed. The “lexical” content elements that are thus connected form different groups depending on the syntagmatic relations they enter into (or by which “grammatical” content elements they are determined). These groups are commonly called “word types”, and they can be pronounced differently and distinguished from each other in expression. A strong differentiation "On the concept of word types cf. Trnka (1982: 315, 327f.) (cf. also the inspiring remarks by the free Hjelmslev 1928: chap. V). This distinction is about the difference or equality of the expression of the corresponding grammatical and lexical content elements. Thus, for example, in Chinese and Vietnamese the,,Nouns* on the one hand and the,,Verbs” and,,Adjectives* on the other hand are distinguished in such a way that the former, in contrast to the latter, are in the pradict with the copula, i.e. the first group, in contrast to the second, requires an explicit expression of the copula function, and there is thus a difference in the expression of the grammatical content element ‘copula’; other differences are hardly found and also the,,verbs“ and 138 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL of word types is considered in Prague typology as a feature of the flexional type, while in the other language types word types are weaker distinguished (cf. e.g. Skali¢ka 1979: 87, 117, 190, 201, 336, 338-341). Now one finds a high MaB of the distinction of word types, which is attributed to the flexional type, in the theory of grammaticalization as a reflection of a high grammaticalization: the clearer the word types are distinguished, the more they are grammaticalized (cf. Lehmann Ms.a). 3.3.4. In addition to the homogeneity of a paradigm (see § 3.2.1.), an opposite property is also postulated as another feature of a high level of grammaticalization, namely allomorphy (and substitutivism) (Lehmann 2002: 122). This seems somewhat surprising, because homogeneity represents a regularity, while allomorphy is an irregularity, but finds its explanation in the correlation between high levels of grammaticalization and the flexion type and also in the state in Old Germanic languages. 3.3.5. Another example of the ancestry of the highest stages of grammaticalization with the state in the ancient Germanic languages can be the peak of the grammaticalization of the numeral (Lehmann 2002: 52): The number of members of the category is reduced, the numeral formants are obligated and merged, the congruence in the numeral arises, originally semantically different formants become allomorphs and stem supplementism also occurs. All also features of the flexion type. A similar description of the fully grammaticalized numeral category, which coincidentally coincides with the state in Old Germanic languages, can be found in Erhart (1970: 69f.). 3.3.6. A more subtle and interesting example is the case of the so-called. a fixed sequence of words. In the last section of his exciting book, Lehmann (2002: § 4.4.4.) reads a final exciting question, namely that the so-called. fixed word order can occur both at the beginning and at the end of the grammaticalization. From the point of view of Prague typology, I would like to make the following remark: In the context of Prague typology, as in the context of the grammaticalization, the so-called “translation” occurs. fixed word sequence in two places, namely in the polysynthetic and in the insulating type. It should be emphasized, however, that there is an essential difference between these two fixed word sequences. The first, polysynthetic, fixed word sequence at the beginning of the grammaticalization scale can be described as semantic and can be compared with Skalicka’s implicit or lexical syntax: Skalicka (1960b) distinguishes several “special forms of syntax”, and one of these forms is the implicit or lexical syntax, in which the relationships between.adjectives” are not distinguished. In Hungarian, the nominal possessive suffixes and the verbal personal suffixes are partly the same, and in Tirki the plural suffix is the same in the nomina and in the third person of the verbs; Conversely, in these languages the same lexical nominal form of expression can be both dependent (i.e. adjective) and independent (i.e. noun). However, differences in the corresponding forms of expression are also common. In contrast, in languages such as Czech or Lithuanian, for example, both the expressions of dependent Nomina and the them determining grammes as well as those of independent nomina and their grammes usually differ, whereby the so-called. Adjectives and the so-called. Nouns in the expression are clearly distinguished. 139 Words (lexemen or signs) are given their meaning by the words themselves." The relationships between words are expressed by the order, the position of the words within the framework of the sentence, but they are not determined by this, but by the semantics of the words. On the contrary, the other, isolative and at the end of the grammaticalization scale, can be described as “formal”: the relationships between the words are expressed and determined by their order. The difference between the two kinds of fixed word order can also be formulated as follows: In the second (isolative) case, every change in the order of the words also changes the meaning of the sentence, the relationship between the words. On the other hand, in the first (polysynthetic) case, the meaning of the sentence, the relationship between the words, is not necessarily changed by a change in the order of the words: namely, if the semantics (the meaning) of the words themselves clearly show the relationship between them within the framework of the sentence, i.e. also the meaning of the sentence, then it is not necessarily necessary to leave their order unchanged. This is in line with Skalika’s general slogan that the polysynthetic type tries to build its grammar on semantics. Examples from the dominant polysynthetic Chinese for the freedom of word order, if the relationships between words are clear on the basis of their meaning, can be found in Skalicka (1946: 400f., 409; summarized in Skalicka 1979: 192) herself. An example from the equally polysynthetic Vietnamese can be added. In Vietnamese, the future of an action can be expressed in such a way that the character in question stands before or after the subject, but still before the predicate for a time indication: Chiéu hém nay ti mua tw dién ‘This afternoon I will buy a dictionary’. The past tense of an action, on the other hand, is expressed by placing the sign at the end of the sentence: 76i mua quyén sdch tru’a hom nay ‘I bought the book at noon today’. But when the time is clear from the word meaning, the signs are not bound by these rules: Chiéu hém qua t0i di xem chiéu bong ‘Yesterday afternoon I went to the cinema’ and Tdi di xem chiéu bong chiéu hom qua ‘I went to the cinema yesterday afternoon’ (cf. Vi 1998: 64). 3.3.7. In connection with the case of two kinds of fixed word order, let me make a few further remarks. The most striking or banal observation is that one sees here an instructive example of Gabelentz’s typological spiral: The beginning and the end —here the so-called “endings- ”— are the two sides of the same coin. fixed sequence of words —are similar, but not the same. Furthermore, it can be stated that the assertion that the isolative fixed word sequence represents the end of grammaticalization, actually seems to be hardly theoretically grounded, but rather empirically, by the development of Western European languages after the loss of inflection (the empirical point of view here is therefore the same as the historical, i.e. a potentially accidental one). ‘Here, by the way, another slogan of Skali¢ka (1962a) should also be mentioned, namely that syntax is anthropocentric (and morphology tiberfluissig), which applies in particular to the implicit or lexical syntax. 140 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL ximal reduction of grammatical signs, i.e. their reduction to zero, which is considered as the highest stage of grammaticalization (e.g. Lehmann 2002: 12, 57f., 64, 121, 137): This reduction (immediately preceding the formation of the isolative fixed word sequence) followed in Western European languages the penultimate phase of grammaticalization, which corresponds to the maximization of the flexion type. Generally, however, the assertion that the reduction to zero represents the end or the maximum of grammaticalization is not to be accepted without further ado, because nothing is nothing and not something, i.e. also no end. Rather, the end of grammaticalization represents that,,panultimate stage* (e.g. Lehmann 2002: 77), which corresponds to the flexional or even more to the introflexive type (cf. Giger, Vykypél 2001: 79f.). 3.3.8. One can ask what the signs (in §§ 3.3.1-7.) mean. It may also mean that the criteria of expression in the grammarization theory are based on a squinting grammar, which looks for the flexional Latin and its isolating West European daughter languages. More sharply speaking, it is strongly grammaticalized, which looks like what Latin grammar calls grammatical, and even more strongly grammaticalized is what it became in Western European languages. One comes to the above (§ 2.2.) quoted words of Hoskovec tiber Erhart zurtick. If one recalls the above (§ 3.2.) said, so the two comparative axiomatics there mentioned, the language-- specific (i.e. practically the general phonetics for the plan of expression and for the plan of content the metaphysics in the traditional linguistics, a kind of logic in the Chomskyans or the so-called "translational axioms") can be recalled. cognitive linguistics in the case of the very latest fashion in linguistics) and call the intralingual, explicit comparison bases. In addition, there can also be an implicit and therefore in Hjelmslev- ’s way a priori comparison and descriptive basis, a squinting grammar- ”. 3.4 The correlation between high levels of grammaticalization and the characteristics of the inflective type has been mainly based on phenomena which concern the expressive side of linguistic signs (and there may be other ones). This is also reasonable, because the core of Prager’s typology consists in the observation of which forms are assigned to the functions present in languages. Lehmann (2002: 109f.) however, rightly emphasizes that the Grammaticalization parameters affect both sides of the linguistic sign, even if it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them. If it were possible to establish a grammaticalization scale also on the basis of content or semantic parameters, it would be impossible to correlate this with the Prague typology, because this typology assumes that in the content plan (in the tectogrammatical level) there is no such scale, but only elements that are either,,lexically* or »grammatical* are, and that in the different language types the lexical elements are expressed the same and the grammatical ones differently. At this point, therefore, those grammaticalization parameters still have to be discussed, which more or less concern the content (the semantics). ‘For an interesting attempt to establish a basis for language comparison in content, a,,functional linguistics* vg]. Lehmann (2004a, 2004b). —On the semantic basis of a synchronous comparison of languages, see also Sgall (1978) and Haspelmath (2004: 572f.). Thoughts on Grammaticalization | 141 3.4.1. The parameter of variability can be left aside in this context. The two variables, the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic (Lehmann 2002: §§ 4.2.3., 4.3.3.), presuppose a non-gradual change in the content plan. In the case of syntagmatic variability, a new or different form of interference between certain content elements is reflected by new interference between the expressions assigned to them. The paradigmatic variability is determined as a whole by relationships in the content plan, not by signs (see also above § 3.2.2.). In the parameter of paradigmatic cohesion (Lehmann 2002: § 4.2.2.) semantic resp. better identify content aspects of grammaticalization. One of them is the small scope of the paradigm (or category). However, two things can be noted here: on the one hand, this seems to be correlatable with the state in the highly flexional Old Germanic languages (cf. also above § 3.3.5.), on the other hand, the question arises in principle, what constitutes a paradigm (a category) (cf. also Vykypél 2005: 215-223). For example, it is very easy to establish a criterion according to which the prepositions and the affixed cases are included in a single category. In other words, this parameter also presupposes a description of the content, by which consequently the gradual character in the relationship between the categories in question can be doubted (as in the case of cases and prepositions). Another semantic aspect of paradigmatic cohesion, the simple relations within the category, has already been discussed above (§ 3.2.1.). Lehmann (2002: § 4.3.2., pp. 138-140) also draws attention to the semantic aspect of syntagmatic cohesion (of binding). This assumption is very interesting (among other things also because of all its implications, which Lehmann a.a.O. deals with). However, it seems to present us again with the problem of a theory of content. The next question is what is bound to what, i.e. what determines what, and what dependency is meant (because, for example, dependency can also exist between parts of a composite, i.e. in the field of the lexicon). The question also arises how to distinguish between the allegedly smaller and larger attachments. One points to the general uncertainty of criteria in semantics and the continuum character of language use. This also means that one can hardly find natural gradual contradictions here, but only discrete contradictions involved by the form. The syntagmatic weight (Lehmann 2002: § 4.3.1.) corresponds to the question of what is determined by what. As indicated above (§§ 3.2.6., 3.3.2.), from the point of view of the table of contents there is no need to distinguish between constructions containing a single determining sign and those containing several such signs. Thus, there are hardly any gradual content or semantic differences. ‘It should be pointed out that semantic (content- -related) attachment of the grammatical element to a lexical is also found among the constitutive properties of the grammatical elements in Erhart (cf. above § 2.2.) and that it is also possible to see it in the modi significandi of the medieval modists. 142 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL The semantic and the formal aspect seem to be best distinguished by the parameter of paradigmatic weight (Lehmann 2002: § 4.2.1.): A stronger grammaticalization of a sign is associated with its stronger desemantisation. This criterion is also encountered in Skalika’s definition of grammatical meanings (see above § 2.2.). However, there are some concerns to be expressed. Secondly, the semantic description is generally a rather big problem, and one is often confronted with vagueness or difficulty in grasping the terms or interventions of external or at least metalinguistic factors. Semantics can also be considered (in a Hjelmslevian perspective) as a manifestation of relationally defined content elements, i.e. as a permeation of language structure and world, and thus as irrelevant to the definition of the elements and their categories. From a gnoseological or operational point of view, semantics or semantic description can also be understood as a “translation” into another language. (See also above §§ 3.2.3.-4. and the distinction of Milos Dokulil (1978) between the word-forming, i.e. structurally determined, and the lexical, i.e. by use determined, meaning. )'° The semantics can therefore be held for something, which on the one hand is irrelevant for the definition of content elements resp. a consequence of this definition (of the position of the elements in the structure of the plan of contents) (see also Hjelmslev 1959: 192-198), and on the other hand, with regard to its abstractness or concreteness can only be determined extralinguistically or on the basis of custom, but hardly within the framework of the language structure (the structure of the plan of contents) itself. The gradual character of the semantic contrast between the related lexical and grammatical elements is given by language. In the end, the continuity of the phenomena in this area is also connected with what has been said, which Skali¢ka (1959, 1979: 297-299) also thematised when he described the fundamental semantic relationship between some lexical and some grammatical elements, and spoke tiberously of the transposition of the one into the other. Hjelmslev held this very fact for the (operational) reason of the impossibility of defining grammatical elements semantically (cf. Vykypél 2005: 244f.). Here we also come back to the question mentioned above (§ 3.1.), when a sign is already to be examined with regard to its grammaticalization and when not yet. 3.4.2. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that one finds in Skali¢ka (1955b, 1960a) the evaluation of his language types with regard to their grammaticity and abstractness, or more precisely the grammaticity and abstractness produced by them’’, which is thus with '© The question of how one recognizes that something has less semantic characteristics, Lehmann (2002: 114) also answers with a reference to a metalanguage (it is described by less metalinguistic sentences). —The general problematic of semantics can also be demonstrated by a single problem, namely that of the gradation of the cases(functions) with regard to their grammatical character (Lehmann 2002: 84f. and § 3.4.2.2.): The semantic criteria seem somewhat vague, and finally the MaB of grammaticalization in content is tied to that in expression (Lehmann 2002: 85, 100). 7 See also Skaliéka (1949). 143 the semantic aspect of the grammarization parameter of the paradigmatic weight can be compared. This can also be called Skalika’s own grammaticalization interpretation of his language typology. Interestingly, Skalicka’s typology here does not correspond to the grammaticalization scale, unlike the expression criteria. The language types can be grouped by gemaf Skali¢ka (a.a.O.) with regard to their grammaticity into two binary oppositions: the polysynthetic type stands against the isolating type and the agglutinating type against the flexion type. The polysynthetic type builds its grammar (Mathesius’ in-relation sentences) on semantics (it has no specialized grammatical signs) and is thus semantic and agrammatic, while the isolating type builds its grammar on formal elements (with the status of words) and is thus formal and grammatical. The polysynthetic type is ancestrally very descriptive in the formation of words, lexems (Mathesius’ onomatology), i.e. its lexems are strongly motivated (the main process of polysynthetic word formation is composition- ), while the isolating type is strongly labelling in this area, i.e. its lexems are strongly motivated. Lexeme are strongly unmotivated, arbitrary (the isolating type prefers the creation of completely new words, e.g. also of abbreviations, or the borrowing)'*. (For the difference in semantics between the polysynthetic and the isolating type, see also the explanations on the so-called fixed word sequence above in § 3.3.6.) The agglutinating type produces a number of affixes and solves with them both problems of grammar and those of onomatopoeia. These two characteristics thus lead on the one hand to the possibility of reducing the asymmetry of the linguistic sign (the relationship between form and meaning within the framework of the sign becomes clearer) and on the other hand to the obscuration of the relationship between grammar and onomatopoeia (word formation). Both have the consequence that the agglutinative language type is less grammatical and abstract and more agrammatical and descriptive (with motivated complex signs), although not in such a manner as the polysynthetic type. The flexional (and introflexive) type, on the contrary, reduces the number of affixes until they become endings. This leads to the strengthening of the asymmetry of the linguistic sign (synonymy and homonymy, accumulation of functions in morphemes). Grammar and onomatopoeia have in the flexional type complicated sets (paradigms) of signs with no or low motivation and with strong obscuration of the relationship between form and meaning for fiction. The flexional language type is thus more grammatical and abstract, but not as abstract and unmotivated as the isolating type, because the flexible formants form formally (in expression) more coherent, albeit complicated systems. The amount of abstraction in Skalika’s language types can be represented schematically as follows: '* To distinguish between the descriptive and labelling designations used on Mathesius, and to these German terms cf. Danes (2003: 37). 150 | BOHUMIL BREWERY Inspiration; in the Prague School one finds the clarity of theory combined with the vagueness of practice, of,,reality* as an empirical continuum. REMARK I: In this context I would like to draw attention to the fact that the structural perspective, which the Prague School, but also other European structuralist directions, represent, should not be confused with the perspective of expression: the structure is not equal to the expression (for a meaning or function), as was probably the case in American descriptivism and as Lehmann (2004a: 149-154; 2004b: § 2.2.) seems to presuppose, but the structure is the language system itself, by which the world is shaped, observed and understood, and by which this formation is approximately determined (on the concept of structure, cf. Benveniste 1962). And this system has both its expressive side (or “formal” side in Prague) and its content side (or “functional” side in Prague). See here, for example, only the always repeated distinction of Sgall in his functional-generative description between the linguistically structured meaning and the cognitive content, in which he even refers to the distinction of de Saussure and Hjelmslev between the content form and substance (see Sgall, Hajicova, Panevova 1986: 13; Vykypél 2005: 285). The perceived double attribute,,functional-structural* of The Prague School expresses the fact that the Prague School considers the linguistic structure as well as its description as fundamentally determined by the communicative task of language, which consequently also means that it starts from a fundamentally reciprocal relationship between language and the world (cf. also Vachek 1975 = 1976: 91-103; Vykypél 2005: 272ff.). NOTE II: If to the above (note 20) topics to be dealt with one more should be added, so one could at this point also mention Lehmann's plea for the topicality and necessity of an empirical linguistics, which is more (from both theoretical and practical points of view) oriented to linguistic data and deals with them (among other things also in view of the extinction of languages). Lehmann (2004¢c: § 4.1.) distinguishes in an interesting way about three ways of conducting linguistics: the logical (which in recent times represents the various directions of structuralism), the hermeneutical and the empirical, whereby only the latter enables an appropriate treatment of data. However, it could be noted that in the Prague School all these three aspects are in high degree in balance and connected. The,,hermeneutical” consideration of language can be found in particular in in the developed literary theory of the Prague School, which is largely linguistically restricted and represented by names such as Jan Mukayovsky, Felix Vodi¢éka or Miroslav Cervenka. The,.empirical“ consideration with all its careful reflection, as Lehmann (2004c) writes, is probably most clear in the collection of material on dialects of the Czech language (i.e. also on,,threatened languages- “) since the 1960s. 60s of the 20. On the one hand, a natural and spontaneous collaboration between,,- traditional” and structuralist linguists developed in this project, on the other hand, the work was largely carried out on the basis formulated by Prague language theory (cf. THOughts on Grammaticalization | £54 the introduction to the first volume of the Czech Language Atlas —Balhar, Jan¢éak 1992; a similar situation is also found in the case of the Sorbian Language Atlas, vel. SSA 1965-96). From another point of view, however, it is naturally not so clear what empiricism actually is, but that is another time (see my scattered remarks in Vykypél 2005: 317-332). AuBerdem should be referred to two other aspects of the matter. The claim (Lehmanns The demand) for a researcher-independent existence and fixation of data corresponds well to the neopositivist (logical-positivist) condition of an intersubjective verifiability of statements (which as is known was later developed mainly by W. V. Quine), and neopositivism was as is known an important source of inspiration for Hjelmslev. A serious (albeit fragmentary) reflection on what data are and how to deal with them can be found even in the heart of “extreme structuralism”, namely by Hans Jérgen Uldall (1959). NOTE III: With the above mentioned (§ 4.3.) procedural-ontological conception of language corresponds also the conception of the explanation in the language description assumed by the grammarization theory. This explanation is essentially diachronic or historical (diachronic is a description that has two or more systems or parts of systems as its object in relation to their mutual interconnectedness as potential temporal substitutes; a historical description deals with realized substitutions). Diachronically or historically, a system can only be understood if it is tiberified into a previous system or — seen from a different point of view — if its elements are (re)structured according to the structure of the previous system (with a certain exaggeration, for example, young grammatical linguistics can be considered as a squinting grammar, which glances at the original language). Something ancestral can be found in the theory of grammaticalization, when a phenomenon is understood through a,,tentative degrammaticalisation~: Human beings [...] want to make sense out of formal structure. Most of us will have made the experience that a grammatical feature of some language was totally obscure to them until they discovered that it was a grammaticalized variant of something which had more semantic content and therefore was understood from start. [...] Many people have gone through the experience that prior knowledge of Latin can be quite helpful in the learning of a Romance language, while the reverse sequence of learning does not provide any systematic aid (apart from cognate vocabulary, thatis). This is another example of the phenomenon that laymen just as linguists understand grammatical structures in terms of less grammaticalized structures. This example is particularly interesting for the theory of language, as it would appear to provide an argument for the psychological reality of the presence of diachrony in synchrony.“ (Lehmann 1993: 331, 332f.) The presence of diachrony in synchrony (and of synchrony in diachrony) or the synchronous dynamism of language, however, naturally represents only one of the possible linguistic explanation instruments and has, in addition, for the description of language as a whole or of the position of an element or an occurrence, a distinct significance. 152 | BOHUMIL VYKYPEL in the system of language, i.e. for their definition, no decisive importance; On the contrary, this definition and thus the description of the configuration of systems forms the prerequisite for the dynamic-synchronous, diachronic or historical explanation, because it discovers the structural tensions as potentials for change. (Instructional on the historical character of the explanation implied by the theory of grammaticalization, see also Haspelmath 1992: v.a. 72, 74, 81.) 5. In conclusion, I dare even to argue that the innermost, initially probably unintended, meaning of the grammarization theory represents the polemic with structural linguistics or a defense of prestructural linguistics, a linguistics based on the deep everyday human experience that the world is complicated or at least appears to be so. I believe that the structuralists, if they still exist in the world, should, in their own interest, deal in depth with the theory of grammaticalization. The above sketches are nothing more than preliminary remarks. Generally speaking, there are in principle two ways to come from the feeling that reality is an empirical continuum of phenomena, a theatrum mundi: one way is that of the medieval nominalists and their gross interpretative theories, the other that of the medieval realists and their demeaning An attempt to understand the world without the claim that it will ever be understood. The first way is in danger of becoming meaningless, i.e. not forming any part of the world, the second way can again become pointless. Perhaps there is also a compromise: an approximate demietic intelligibilization of the world by an approximate great theory. At the moment I have the feeling that the PRAGUE SCHOOL comes closest to this in linguistics. Perhaps this is more than just patriotism. LITERACY Batuar, J., JANCAK, P., eds., 1992: Czech Language Atlas 1, Prague: Academia. BENVENISTE, E. 1962: « Structure » in linguistics. In: E. Benveniste: Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard, 91-98. Danes, F. 2003: Vilém Mathesius’ conception of functional linguistics. Nekula 2003, 31–47. DIpDERICHSEN, P. 1966: Wholeness and Structure. Selected Linguistic Dissertations. Selected Linguistic Papers with Detailed English Summaries, Kobenhavyn: G. E. C. Gads Forlag. DokuLIL, M. 1968: On the question of the place of word formation in the language system. The Word and the Verb 29, 9-16. [Reprint in Panevova, Skoumalova 1997, 125-133.] Doku tL, M. 1978: On the question of predictability of lexical statement of word-forming motivated word. Journal of the American Philosophical Society 39, 244-251. [Reprint in English] Selections from the linguistic diary of Milos Dokucil 1. Hrsg. von O. Uliény, Praha: Filozoficka fakulta Univerzity Karlovy 1997, DoxuLiL, M. 1994: The Prague School’s 41-50.] Theoretical and Methodological Contribution to “Word Formation” (Derivatology). Luelsdorff 1994, pp. 123–161. [Reprint in: Panevova, Skoumalova 1997, 179-211.] Enters, K.-H. 1999: Josef Vachek's last contribution to the history of the Prague School. Journal of Linguistics 9, 288-294. Eruart, A. 1970: Studies on Indo-European Morphology, Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyné. (Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis. Facultas philosophica, 148.) Thoughts on Grammaticalization [| 153 Gicer, M. 2002: Current issues of linguistic typology on the example of Slavic languages. In: P. Zigo, Hrsg., BraSlav 1. Proceedings of the International Slavistic Conference, held at the Faculty of Arts of Comenius University in Bratislava 14-15 November 2002, Bratislava, 43-50. Gicer, M., VykyPEL, B. 2001: Typology of Lithuanian and Latvian (with a general outlook on the perspectives of Prague typology- ). Sbornik praci filosofické fakulty brnénské university A 49, Hasicova, E., PANEvovA, J. 1996: Function45-86. al generative description and its Praguian roots. The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 65-66, 21-28. Haspecmatu, M. 1992: Grammaticalization theory and heads in morphology. In: M. Aronoff, Hrsg., Morphology now, Albany: State University of New York Press, 69-82, 194-198. [also available for download at http:// email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/1992ghd.pdf] Haspevmatn, M. 1998: Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 315-351. [also available for download at http://email.eva.- mpg.de/~haspelmt/1998gre.pdf] Haspecmatu, M. 2004: Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28, 554-579. [also available for download at http://email- .eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/ExDesc.pdf] HyevMsLey, L. 1928: Principles of general grammar, Kobenhavn: Bianco Lunos Bogtrykkeri. (The Kgl. Society for the Advancement of Science. Historisk-philologiske Meddelelser, 16/1.) HJe_MSLeV, L. 1943: Omkring sprogteoriens grundleggelse, Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. HJELMSLEY, L. 1959: Essays on language, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. (Works of the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, 12.) HJELMSLEV, L. 1968: The Language. Ubers. by O. Werner, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. HJELMSLEV, L. 1972: Language system and language change, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. (Works of the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, 15.) HJELMSLEV, L. 1973: Linguistic Essays 11, Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprogog Kulturforlag. (Works of the Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen, 14.) Hiapky, J. 1997: Bibliography of Professor Josef Vachek’s works. Brno Studies in English 23 (Sbornik praci Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, S 3.), 15-42. [also available for download at http://www.phil.muni.cz/ angl/bse/archive/BSE_23_02.pdf] Hoskovec, T. 2001: Prooemium ad Grammaticum. In: O. Seféik & B. Vykypél, eds., Grammaticus. Studia linguistica Adolfo Erharto quinque et septuagenario oblata, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 11-13. Isacenko, A. V. 1948: Morphology, syntax and phraseology. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 7, 17-32. Kurzov4A, H. 1993: From Indo-European to Latin: The Evolution ofa Morphosyntactic Type, Amsterdam— Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 104.) LEHMANN, Cu. 1985: The role of grammaticalization in linguistic typology. In: H. Seiler & G. Brettschneider, eds., Language Invariants and Mental Operations. International Interdisciplinary Conference, held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, September 18-23, 1983, Tiibingen (Language 41-52. Universals Series, 5), LEHMANN, Cu. 1986: Grammaticalization and linguistic typology. General Linguistics 26, 3-21. LEHMANN, Cu. 1987: Language Change and Typology. In: N. Boretzky, W. Enninger & Th. Stolz, Hrsg., Beitréige zum 3. Essener Colloquium tiber Language Change and its Determining Factors from 30. 9. —2. 10. 1987 at the University of Essen, Bochum (Bochum-- Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung, 4), 201-225. LEHMANN, Cu. 1993: Theoretical implications of grammaticalization phenomena. In: W. A. Foley, ed., The Role of Theory in Language Description, Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 69), 315-340. LEHMANN, Cu. 2002: Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd, revised edition, Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat. (Working Papers of the Seminar for Linguistics of the University of Erfurt, 9.) [also available for download at http:/Avww.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/ASSidUE/ASSidUE09.pdf] LEHMANN, Cu. 2002a: New reflection on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: 1. Wischer & G. Diewald, Hrsg., New reflections on grammaticalization, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Typological Studies in Languages, 49), 1-18. [also available for download at http:/www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/ personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/New_reflection.pdf] 154 | The 154th LEHMANN, Cu. 2004a: Functional grammar. In: W. Premper, ed., Dimensions and Continuums. In: Hansjakob Seiler: Universalienforschung, Bochum: Universitatsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer (Diversitas linguarum, 4), 147-165. LEHMANN, Cu. 2004b: Documentation of grammar. In: O. Sakiyama, F. Endo, H. Watanabe & F. Sasama, eds., Lectures on Endangered Languages 4. From Kyoto Conference 2001, Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publication Series, C-004.), 61-74. [also available for download at http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Documentation_of_grammar.pdf] LEHMANN, Cu. 2004c: Data in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 21, 275-310. [also available for download at http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Data_in_linguistics.pdf] LEHMANN, Cu. 2005: Theory and method in grammaticalization. In: G. Diewald, ed., Grammatikalisierung, Berlin: de Gruyter (Zeitschrift fiir Germanistische Linguistik, Themenheft) (in print). [also available for download at http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Theory&method_in_grammaticalization.pdf] LEHMANN, Cu. Ms.a: Grammatikalisierung und Wortarten.http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/ personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Grammatikalisierung& Wortarten.pdf LEHMANN, Cu. Ms.b: Motivation in language. Attempt at a systematization. http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Publ/Motivation_in_language.pdf LeSka, O. 1995: Prague School teachings of the classical period and beyond. Work of the Linguistic Circle of Prague (n.s.) 1, 3-22. Leska, O. 1996: The meaning of Meaning in the Prague School. In: B. H. Partee & P. Sgall, Hrsg., Discourse and Meaning: Papers in honor of Eva Hajicova, Amsterdam—Philadephia: John Benjamins, 127-140. Leska, O. 1998: Prague Circle Linguistics. Linguistica Pragensia 8, 57-72. Leska, O. 1999: Prague School Linguistics: Unity in Diversity. Works of the Linguistic Circle of Prague (n.s.) 3, 3-14. Lesxa, O., NEKvapPit, J., Sourys, O. 1993: Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle. In: J. Chloupek & J. Nekvapil, eds., Studies in Functional Stylistics, Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe. 36), 9-50. Lue.sporrrF, Pu. A., Hrsg., 1994: The Prague School of Structural and Functional Linguistics, Amsterdam— Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 41.) Lue.sporrF, Pu. A., PANEVOVA, J., SGALL, P., eds., 1994: Praguiana 1945-1990, Amsterdam—Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 40.) Matuestus, V. 1911: On the Potentiality of the Phenomena of Language. In: Vachek 1964, 1-32 & In: Vachek 1983, 3-43. Matuestius, V. 1929: Functional Linguistics. Vachek 1983, pp. 121–142. Maruesius, V. 1936: On Some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of Grammar. In: Vachek 1964, Matuesi306-319. us, V. 1975:A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Hrsg. von J. Vachek. The Hague—Paris: Mouton (Janua linguarum. Series Practica, 208) & Prague: Academia. NekuLa, M., ed., 2003: Prague Structuralism. Methodological foundations /Prague Structuralism. Methodological Fundamentals, Heidelberg: Winter. (Slavica. Monographs, hand-, teaching and Worterbiicher, 3.) PanevovA, J. 1994: Valency Frames and the Meaning of the Sentence. Luelsdorff 1994, pp. 223–243. PanevovA, J., SKOUMALOVA, Z., Hrsg., 1997: Content — expression — meaning. Viborz of the linguistic dill Milose Dokulila Il, Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University. PopeLa, J. 1991: Prospects of V. Skaliéka- ’s Linguistic Typology. In: B. Palek, P. Janota, Hrsg., Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on LP'90. Prague. Karolinum (Acta Universitatis Carolinae, 1992. Philologica, 3-4.), 237-243. Pope La, J. 1998: A Contribution to the General Typology of Languages and Typology of German. Germanistica Pragensia 13 (Acta Universitatis Carolinae, 1996. Philologica, 5.), 75-91. SCHOONEVELD, C. H. vAN 1996: What has the Prague School Given to Linguistics and to Science? Proceedings of the Prague Linguistic Circle (n.s.) 2, 3-58. GEDANKEN ZUR GRAMMATIKALISIERUNG | 195 SGALL, P. 1971: On the Notion “Type of Language”. Linguistic Works of Prague 4, 75-87. [Reprint in: Sgall 1984, 19-37.] SGALL, P. 1978: Synchronous comparison of languages and its semantic basis. Word and Verb 39, 25-32. SGALL, P. 1979: The Language Typology of V. Skaliékas. In: Skali¢ka 1979, 1-20. SGALL, P. 1982: On the Typology of the Theme-Rhema Structure. In: G. Jager, R. Heinisch, eds., Studies in Czech, Slovak and German from a Comparative Perspective, Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universitat, SGALL, P., eds., 1984: Contribu173-185. tions to Functional Syntax, Semantics, and Language Comprehension, Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 16.) & Prague: Academia. SGALL, P. 1988: Naturality, Syntax and Typology. Journal of Phonetics, Linguistics and Communication Research 41, 463-470. SGALL, P. 1992: Valence and Typology. Journal of Phonetics, Linguistics and Communication Research 45, 200-206. SGALL, P. 1992b: Classical Structuralism and Present-- Day Praguian Linguistics. In: H.-H. Lieb, Hrsg., Prospects for a New Structuralism, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 75-90. (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 96.) SGALL, P. 1993a: Skali¢ka's Language Typology and its Continuation. Language Typology and Universality Research 46, 318-329. SGALL, P. 1993b: The Czech Tradition. In: J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, T. Vennemann, eds., Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary linguistic research. 1. Halbband, Berlin-New York: Walter der Gruyter, 349-368. SGALL, P. 1995: Formal and Computational Linguistics in Prague. (in German). Works of the Prague Linguistic Circle (n.s.) 1, 23-35. SGALL, P. 1997: Functionalism in Czech Linguistics and in the World. Linguistica Pragensia 7, 64-81. SGALL, P. 1999: Types of Languages and Probabilistic Implication Laws. Work of the Linguistic Circle of Prague (n.s.) 3, 25-34. SGaLL, P. 2002: Freedom of Language: Its nature, its sources, and its consequences. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Prague (n.s.) 4, 309-329. SGALL, P. 2004: Types of Languages and the Simple Pattern of the Core of Language. In: P. van Sterkenburg, ed., Linguistics Today —Facing a Greater Challenge, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 243-265. SGALL, P., HasicovA, E., PANEvovA, J. 1986: The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects, Dordrecht: Reidel & Prague: Academia. Sxaicka, V. 1935: On Hungarian Grammar. In: Skali¢ka 1979, 59-125. SKALICKA, V. 1937: Remarks on congruence. Journal of the American Medical Association 15, 35-38. SKALICKA, V. 1946: On the typology of the spoken Chinese language. Archiv orientdlni 15, 386-412. SKALICKA, V. 1947-48: Kodansky structuralism a,,prazska Skola“. In: SKALICKA, V. 1947-48: Kodansky structuralism a,,prazska Skola“. In: SKALICKA, V. 1947-48: Kodansky structuralism a,,prazska Skola“. The Word and the Word 10, 135-142. [Abbreviated Russian translation: KonenrareHcKuit crpykTypaH3M HM «[Ipaxckas Uikoma]. In: B. A. 3BernHues, pe., Acmopus azvixo3snanua XIX-XX eekoe 6 ouvepKax u 147-154.] uzene4enuax II. 3. Aufl. Moskau 1965, SKALICKA, V. 1948: The Need for a Linguistics of “la parole”. Vachek 1964, pp. 375–390. SKALICKA, V. 1949: On Analogy and Anomaly. In: Luelsdorff, Panevova, Sgall 1994, 147-170. SKa.icka, V. 1950: On Case Theory. In: Luelsdorff, Panevova, Sgall 1994, 45-70. SKALICKA, V. 1955a: On polysynthetic languages. Archiv orientdlni 23, 10-28. SkALICKa, V. 1955b: On concreteness and abstractness in the formation of words. Universitas Carolina, Philologica 1, 75— 84. SKALICKA, V. 1957: Complexity of language units. University of Carolina, Philologica 3, 15-25. SKALICKA, V. 1959: Uber die Transposition. Slavica Pragensia 1 (Acta Universitatis Carolinae, 1959. Philologica, Supplementum.), 45-52. 156 | BOHUMIL BREWERY SKALICKA, V. 1960a: A Grammatical Analysis of the Germanic Language. Slavica Pragensia 2 (Acta Universitatis Carolinae, 1960. Philologica, 2), 3-6. SKALICKA, V. 1960b: On the special forms of syntax. In: C. Bosak, Hrsg. : Russian-- Czech Studies, Prague: State Pedagogical Publishers (Sbornik Vysoké školy pedagogické v Praze, Language and Literature, 2), 37-42. SKALICKA, V. 1962a: The Essence of Morphology and Syntax. Slavica Pragensia 4 (Acta Universitatis Carolina, 1962. Philosophical Transactions, 3. ), 123-127. SKALICKA, V. 1962b: Typology and Comparative Linguistics. Czechoslovakian Russian Studies 7, 210-212. SKALICKA, V. 1965: On the Meaning of Grammatical Elements. Slavica Pragensia 7, 9-11. (Acta Universitatis Carolinae 1965. Philologica, 1.) SKALICKA, V. 1966: K Bompocy o Tunouoruu. Bonpoce a3biko3sHanua 15 (4), 22-30. SKALICKA, V. 1979: Typological studies. Ed. by P. Hartmann, Braunschweig—Wiesbaden: Vieweg. (Schriften zur Linguistik, 11.) SSA 1965-96 = Sorbian Language Atlas 1-15. Bearb. by H. FaBke, H. Jentsch and S. Michalk, Bautzen: Domowina. TRNKA, B. 1982: Selected Papers in Structural Linguistics. Hrsg. von V. Fried, Berlin-New York—Amsterdam: Mouton. (Janua linguarum, Series Maior, 88.) ULDALL, H. J. 1959: On the Preparation of a Text. Archivum Linguisticum 11, 1-17. VAcHEK, J., Hrsg., 1964:.A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. VACHEK, J. 1966: The Linguistic School of Prague, Bloomington—London: Indiana University Press. VacuEK, J. 1975: On the interplay of internal and external factors in language development. In: D. Cherubim, ed., Sprachwandel. Reader in Diachronic Linguistics, Berlin —New York: Walter de Gruyter, 190-207. VACHEK, J. 1976: Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics, The Hague—Paris: Mouton (Janua linguarum. Series Maior, 92) & Prague: Academia. VACHEK, J., Hrsg., 1983: Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School, Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 12.) & Praha: Academia. VACHEK, J. 1983a: Remarks on the Dynamism of the System of Language. Vachek 1983, pp. 241–254. VacuEK, J. 2002: Prolegomena to the History of the Prague School of Linguistics. Proceedings of the Linguistic Circle of Prague (n.s.) 4, 3-81. VaACcHEK, J. 2003: Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics. Edited by L. Duskova, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 50.) Vt, Duy-Tw' 71998: Textbook of the Vietnamese language, Hamburg: Buske. VykypEL, B. 2004a: Adolf Erhart (31 May 1926 —11 August 2003). Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Brno A 52, 146-158. VykyPEL, B. 2004b: On Prosody in Typology. Acta linguistica Lithuanica 50, 127-134. VyYKyYPEL, B. 2005: Glossematic studies. Louis Hjelmslev- 's Theory of Language: A Study of the Concept of Language. (Philologia —Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungsergebnisse, 66.) WINNER, T.G. 1998: Prague Functionalism. In: R. Posner, K. Robering, T. A. Sebeok, eds., Semiotik. A handbook on the sign-theoretical foundations of nature and culture. 2. Teilband, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2248-2255. (Handbook of Language and Communication Studies, 13/2.) Bohumil Vykypél Gauta 2005 06 01 Constitution for the Czech language AV CR etymological division Veveri 97 CZ-60200 Brno ([email protected])