Textual analysis - Elly
As is well-known, grammaticalization is a process whereby lexical items lose
phonological weight and semantic specificity and gain grammatical functions. The
best-known examples of lexical elements changing to grammatical ones are verbs
being reanalyzed as auxiliaries and prepositions as complementizers. There are
also grammatical elements that are reanalyzed into more grammatical ones.
These changes necessitate renewal and the entire process is sometimes referred
to as a linguistic cycle. I use Mithun’s (2000: 232) insight that “morpheme order
often does reflect the sequence of grammaticalization of affixes: those affixes
closest to the root are indeed the oldest, and those on the periphery of words can
be seen to be more recent additions”.
Grammaticalization was identified early on but was established as a term
only in 1912 by Meillet. Works such as Lehmann (1982) and Heine & Traugott
(1991) have inspired many linguists to pay closer attention to this phenomenon,
especially in a functionalist framework. Recently, there have been structural
accounts of the cyclicity of the changes involved. Van Gelderen (2004ab; 2007ab),
for instance, discusses Economy Principles that help the learner acquire a
grammar that is more economical and, therefore, more grammaticalized. Wu
(2000/2004), Simpson & Wu (2002ab), Roberts & Roussou (2003), and Roberts
(2007) provide formal accounts of grammaticalization, especially change ‘up the
tree.’ Roberts & Roussou use "upwards reanalysis" (2003: 205). Fuß (2005) argues
for a morphological reanalysis when existing inflection is defective. The phonology
of grammaticalization has been scrutinized by Schiering (2006) who shows that the
phonology is not always reduced. [word count 252]
Analysis
This excerpt is taken from the first chapter of a book on linguistic change; it was
edited but I don’t remember that any syntax was changed.
My two paragraphs contain 32 lexical verbs which means there are 2.67 verbs in
each sentence. This is quite sparse for an academic text. Of these, 15 are transitives,
9 copulas, 3 prepositional verbs, and 5 complex transitives. The latter surprised me
and in fact I am not completely certain about the analysis of sentences 2 and 7.
Connected to this uncertainty is my frequent use of PP Object Predicates with these
verbs (where in class we have just seen NPs and APs).The use of copulas and
transitives is as expected in this genre - namely high - and I use predictable verbs
such as refer to, discuss, provide, and scrutinize. I do not vary my copulas and only
use the verb to be, a sign of trying to argue something forcefully. I don’t have an
abundance of modals, only one can, and that is in a quote and is again a sign of
persuasive writing.
I use 15 embedded clauses, which is not much considering I have 12 sentences, and
2 coordinated clauses. Sentence 6 has but as a conjunction; I have counted this as
embedded (Adverbial) rather than as a coordinated clause because of the meaning.
There are a few embeddings where I am uncertain, namely in sentence 2, but both
seem reduced RCs because I can add relative pronouns. Eight of my 15 embedded
clauses are RCs and I have one complement clause. The others involve objects and
adverbials and one possible Object Predicate in sentence 7.
In short, my analysis of this text shows a varied use of embedded clauses and a mix
of lexical verbs. The only surprise is the use of complex transitives with reanalyze,
identify, and inspire (and, more controversially, help). [word count 288]