92
Middle English Whilom
through discourse use into a grammatical item, and then into an even more grammatical
item, and that these changes were accompanied by decategorialization from a major to a
minor category. Typologically changes of this kind are widespread and show systematic
patterning. Counterexamples are sporadic and only rarely cross- linguistically attested.
(Hopper and Traugott 2003 : 139)
Were we to pursue the notion of degrammaticalization, however, we
might consider the type of change here to be the subcategory of degram-
maticalization that Norde identifies as “degrammation,” a type she consid-
ers to be extremely rare. This change involves “a function word [being]
reanalysed as a member of a major word class, acquiring the morpho-
syntactic properties which are typical of the class, and gaining in seman-
tic substance” (2009: 135). However, the only examples of this type of
change that Norde gives involve modal verb > lexical verb, indefinite pro-
noun > noun, possessive pronoun > noun, and preposition > full verb. In an
earlier discussion of degrammaticalization, Newmeyer ( 1998 : 272– 274)
cites numerous examples of “upgrading” from functional category to lex-
ical category, including the shifts from preposition > verb, pronoun > verb,
preposition/ conjunction > adjective, preposition/ conjunction > noun, and
pronoun > noun. He gives no examples of the upgrading from adverb >
adjective, nor have I found any cited in the literature. As adverbs are an
“intermediate” category (see above), not clearly function words, it is not
obvious that this shift from adverb > adjective would qualify as degram-
mation at all. And as noted previously, the adjective whilom does not in
fact acquire all of the morphosyntactic properties typical of the class. For
these reasons, I reject the view that this development of whilom is a case
of degrammaticalization.
3.4.2.2 Lexicalization. Often equated with (or confused with)
degrammaticalization is lexicalization, a process most broadly understood as
the shift from more grammatical to less grammatical (or more lexical). The
relationship of degrammaticalization to lexicalization is a vexed one,^23 and the
understanding of lexicalization in the literature has been diverse (see Section
1.5.2); lexicalization has been understood to include regular processes of word
formation, processes of reduction and fusion (phrase > lexeme, complex lex-
eme > simple lexeme, distinct morpheme > indistinguishable part of a lex-
ical root), processes leading to increased autonomy (infl ection > clitic, clitic >
word, affi x > word), and changes from grammatical word > lexical word (see
Brinton and Traugott 2005 : Ch. 2; also Himmelmann 2004 : 27).
23 On the relation of degrammaticalization to lexicalization, see Brinton and Traugott
( 2005 : 78– 86).