A note in defense of Lehmann
21.12.2010
One of the most hotly debated issues in the theory of grammaticalization concerns the existence or otherwise of degrammaticalization, i.e. the inverse process to grammaticalization. While most specialists agree that most of the evidence for degrammaticalization adduced so far is defective in one or another way and that very few if any genuine examples of degrammaticalization stand up to closer scrutiny, this state of affairs seems theoretically interesting only if it can be turned into a theorem. The theorem says: Grammaticalization is a unidirectional process; a process running in the inverse direction of grammaticalization, thus, does not exist.
This thesis should be understood as an empirical claim (cf. Lehmann 2004, §4.2). As such, it may be true or false. The idea that it may be true is apparently so provocative that it has triggered a wealth of literature aimed to falsify it. By common standards of scientific dispute, the falsification of a thesis is all the more impressive if it has been seriously upheld in the specialized literature (preferably, by somebody else). Thus, a locus classicus for the thesis is sought. This has been detected, more than once, in Lehmann's Thoughts on grammaticalization (1982, 1995, 2002). Here are four representative references to that work:
a search for counterevidence [to unidirectionality], a task that Lehmann regards as largely futile given that grammaticalization is “an irreversible process” (1995:16).
(Howe 2010:569)
the term [degrammaticalization] was introduced by Lehmann for a phenomenon which he believed to be non-existent:
Various authors (Givón 1975:96, Langacker 1977:103f, Vincent 1980[I]:56-60) have claimed that grammaticalization is unidirectional; that is, an irreversible process [...] there is no degrammaticalization. (Lehmann 1995[1982]:16, emphasis original)
(Norde 2010:123)
However, unidirectionality has also been defined as a constraint on grammatical change in general (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991; Heine 1994 and 1997; Lehmann 1995 [1982]; ...)
(Norde 2009:50)
Lehmann (1995a[1982]: 16) takes change of this type to be unidirectional and is thus led to claim that degrammaticalization does not exist.
(Börjars & Vincent 2011:163)
And here is the actual wording of the paragraph in question:
Various authors (Givón 1975:96, Langacker 1977:103f, Vincent 1980[I]:56-60) have claimed that grammaticalization is unidirectional; that is, it is an irreversible process, the scale in F1 cannot be run through from right to left, there is no degrammaticalization.
Others have adduced examples in favor of degrammaticalization. The few that have
come to my knowledge will be briefly discussed.
(Lehmann 2002:14; unchanged from the earlier editions)
The passage, thus, does not propose the thesis in question and instead ascribes it to other researchers. The quotations adduced before are, therefore, perfect examples of inadmissible quotations taken out of context and of misrepresentations of published views, respectively.
What Lehmann, admittedly, does say towards the end of the discussion introduced by the previous quotation, is the following:
We may therefore conclude this discussion with the observation that no cogent examples of degrammaticalization have been found.
(Lehmann 2002:17)
This, again, may or may not be a misrepresentation of the research situation obtaining in 2002; but it is obviously not a theoretical claim on the non-existence of degrammaticalization.
In order to forestall any misunderstandings: The current state of research is essentially the same. I.e., the thesis on the inexistence of degrammaticalization is an empirical hypothesis which has not yet been thoroughly falsified. Some examples have been adduced in the literature (in particular, in Norde 2009) that come rather close to being empirical evidence of degrammaticalization. Should a completely convincing case be found – something that no current theory is in a position to exclude –, then it would merit considerable interest. The theory of grammaticalization, however, would be only marginally affected. Empirical linguistic theorems are generally subject to a couple of exceptions – language is an activity of human beings who (fortunately) sometimes oppose the general trend.
References
Börjars, Kersti & Vincent, Nigel 2011, "Grammaticalization and directionality". Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics); 163-176.
Howe, Chad 2010, [Review of Muriel Norde. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.] Folia Linguistica 44/2:569-577.
Lehmann, Christian 2002, Thoughts on grammaticalization. Second, revised edition. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSidUE, 9).
Lehmann, Christian 2004, "Theory and method in grammaticalization." Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32,2 (Themenschwerpunkt: Grammatikalisierung) [publ. 2005]; 152-187.
Norde, Muriel 2009, Degrammaticalization. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Norde, Muriel 2010, "Degrammaticalization. Three common controversies". Stathi, Katerina & Gehweiler, Elke & König, Ekkehard (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and