3.4 Accounting for the Change 93If we adopt the view that lexicalization does in fact involve changes from
grammatical word to lexical word (such as the change from prepositional up
to verbal up ), then it might be possible to see the development of adjectival
whilom as lexicalization. However, the category adverb is not strictly “gram-
matical” or functional in the sense that preposition or auxiliary is – recall that
Hopper and Traugott ( 2003 ) see it as “intermediate” – and thus this change
only marginally represents a shift from grammatical to lexical.
The change seen here does not meet the defi nition of lexicalization for-
mulated in Brinton and Traugott ( 2005 ) in essential ways. While it results
in the formation of a new “contentful” form, it does not show an increase
on the cline of lexicality (defi ned in respect to degree of fusion in internal
structure). It does not appear to be gradual, does not involve fusion (uni-
verbation) or fossilization, and does not result in a form that is either par-
tially or completely non- compositional. The semantic changes involved
in this change are also atypical of lexicalization. The semantic changes in
lexicalization are thought to be unpredictable and “not recoverable” (Quirk
et al. 1985 : 1526) and to involve the addition of semantic content (Wischer
2000 : 364– 365). However, the semantic change in whilom , as discussed
above, involves restriction in the semantic content. Moreover, the change
in whilom is not entirely the “one- off” occurrence which would be expected
in the case of lexicalization; as Himmelmann ( 2004 : 37) observes, “lexical-
ization applies to specifi c individual items (and hence it is maximally non-
general), [while] grammaticization always involves a set of items and leads
toward generality of the grammaticizing element.” Rather, whilom could be
seen as part of a semi- productive pattern involving the more or less regular
change of temporal adverbials into adjectives, as in the case of then , now ,
sometime , once (see Brinton 2002 ).
3.4.2.3 Word Formation. The word- formation process of “conver-
sion” or “functional shift” involves the shift of a word from one functional
category (word class) to another, usually with zero derivation (see Bauer 1983 :
226– 230; Plag 2003 : 107– 116). Himmelmann ( 2004 : 7) terms this process
“split,” or “deriving a new lexeme from a single existing one, which may con-
tinue to exist independently.” While Bauer ( 1983 : 226) considers conversion
a “totally free process,” devoid of constraints, in which “all form classes seem
to be able to undergo conversion, and conversion seems to be able to produce
words of almost any form class, particularly open form classes (noun, verb,
adjective, adverb),” Plag ( 2003 : 108) points out that the shifts from verb to
noun (e.g., to run > a run ), from adjective to verb (e.g., empty > to empty ),
and adjective to noun (e.g., private > (a) private ) are the only common types
in English, with other shifts, such as adverb to verb (e.g., up > to up ) being