90
Middle English Whilom
In the broadest terms, unidirectionality in grammaticalization is seen as a
change from less to more grammatical. More specifi cally, grammaticalization
involves change on a number of different levels, all of which are believed to be
irreversible. Phonologically, there is erosion or reduction of the grammatical-
ized form from “heavier”/ longer/ more distinct to “lighter”/ shorter/ less distinct,
what Lehmann ( 2002a ) calls phonological “attrition.” The grammaticalizing
form undergoes a loss of morphosyntactic autonomy and growing depend-
ence, frequently involving bonding or fusion: i.e., loosely conjoined, paratactic
clauses become syntactically unifi ed dependent clauses; freely variant phrases
become fi xed phrases or coalesce as single items; and single items travel on
a cline from autonomous word > enclitic > infl ectional/ derivational affi x.
Coalescence may occur as the grammaticalizing form loses phonological con-
tent and is fused to the host form. Syntactic variability decreases, and the gram-
maticalized item assumes a fi xed position. Grammaticalization also results in
the increased frequency of a form and its obligatory rather than optional appear-
ance. Traditionally, grammaticalization is seen as involving loss of semantic
content, or bleaching (desemanticization); more specifi cally, the unidirectional
semantic changes in the process of grammaticalization include abstraction (from
concrete to abstract), generalization (loss of specifi city, increase in polysemies),
metaphorization (from more familiar/ accessible to less familiar/ accessible),
and metonymization. It has also been argued that grammaticalization involves
(inter)subjectifi cation (Traugott 1995b , 2003b ) and a change from more to
less referential meaning, or increasingly pragmatic and procedural meanings
(e.g., Traugott and König 1991 ; Traugott and Dasher 2002 ).
Finally, an essential component of the unidirectionality of grammaticalization
is decategorialization from lexically “open” category (major part of speech)
to relatively “closed” category (minor part of speech). According to Hopper ,
“Forms undergoing grammaticization tend to lose or neutralize the morpho-
logical markers and syntactic privileges characteristic of the full categories Noun
and Verb, and to assume attributes characteristic of secondary categories such as
Adjective, Participle, Preposition, etc.” (1991: 22, 30– 31; see also Hopper and
Traugott 2003 : 106– 115). As decategorialized items lose referentiality, they lose
their discourse salience, autonomy, or manipulability (see Hopper 1991 : 30).
Hopper and Traugott ( 2003 : 107) postulate the following cline of decategoriality:
major category (noun/ verb) > (intermediate category) > minor categoryMajor categories (noun, verb) give way to minor categories (preposition, con-
junction, auxiliary verb, pronoun, demonstrative). They admit that adjectives
Construction Grammar , “grammatical constructionalization” involves movement towards the
grammatical pole, with the concomitant development of procedural meaning. It involves an
increase in generality or abstractness, an increase in productivity, and a decrease in composi-
tionality (e.g., Trousdale 2012a ).