Cover not available

In:New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 207–230

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

C-gravitation and the grammaticalization degree of “present progressives” in English, French, and Dutch

 | University of Tsukuba
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.202.09wad
This paper aims to explain the differences of grammaticalization degree among the “present progressives” in English, French, and Dutch by introducing the notion of “C-gravitation” (i.e., gravitation toward the consciousness of the speaker) into their grammaticalization process. Hirose (1995, 2000) & Hasegawa and Hirose (2005) proposed a general theory of linguistic comparison in which public-self-centered languages, such as English, are distinguished from private-self-centered languages, such as Japanese, in terms of the notions of “public self” (i.e., the subject of communicating) and “private self” (i.e., the subject of thinking), based on which I developed two types of C-gravitation in Wada (2008) to explain differences concerning tense and mood among public-self-centered languages, including English, French, and Dutch. The above differences will be explained along these lines from a broader perspective.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous studies
    • 2.1 Boogaart (1999)
    • 2.2 De Wit & Patard (2013) and De Wit, Patard & Brisard (2013)
    • 2.3 Mortier (2008)
    • 2.4Beyond Mortier’s analysis
  • 3.C-gravitation
    • 3.1Background to C-gravitation
    • 3.2Two types of C-gravitation
  • 4.Explanation
  • 5.Consequence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Anthonissen, Lynn, De Wit, Astrid & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2016. Aspect meets modality: A semantic analysis of the German am-progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28(1): 1-30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. The progressive in Romance, as compared with English. In Dahl (ed.), 559-604.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 1999. Aspect and Temporal Ordering: A Contrastive Analysis of Dutch and English. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1982. The deictic field of language and deictic words. In Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds), 9-30. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne. 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere Dale & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1977. A Grammar of the German Language. New York NY: Frederick Unger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology EUROTYP 20–6]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank. 2013. A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language 37: 846-879.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Dahl (ed.), 605-653.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II: 1066-1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 207-408. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 257-310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko & Hirose, Yukio. 2005. What the Japanese language tells us about the alleged Japanese relational self. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 219-251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio. 1995. Direct and indirect speech as quotations of public and private expression. Lingua 95(4): 223-238.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Public and private self as two aspects of the speaker: A contrastive study of Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics 32(11): 1623-1656.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kashino, Kenji. 1993. Imiron kara Mita Gohoo (Usage as Seen from Semantics). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes [Languages and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 72]. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics 5(2): 251-271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 2001. Modal verbs and the expression of futurity in English, French and Italian. In Modal Verbs in Germanic and Romance Languages [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 14], Johan van der Auwera & Patrick Dendale (eds), 115-129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20(3): 303-318.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2012. Diachrony and grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect , Robert I. Binnick (ed.), 370-397. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Olmen, Daniël & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2009. Movement futures in English and Dutch: A contrastive analysis of be going to and gaan . In Studies on English Modality, Anastasios Tsangalidis & Roberta Facchinetti (eds), 357-386. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William. 1994. Perspectives on Grammaticalization [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 Vols [Typological Studies in Language 19]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-Functional Approach [Topics in English Linguistics 65]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wada, Naoaki. 2001. Interpreting English Tenses: A Compositional Approach. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Kootekiziko Tyuusinsei no Doai to Seioosyogo no Hoo/Zisei Gensyoo no Sooi (The degree of public-self-centeredness and differences of mood and tense phenomena in West-European languages). In Kotoba no Dainamizumu (The Dynamism of Language), Yu-ichi Mori, Yoshiki Nishimura, Susumu Yamada & Mitsu-aki Yoneyama (eds), 277-294. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. A unified model of tense and modality and the three-tier model of language use. Tsukuba English Studies 32: 29-70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Differences in the semantic range of the English, Dutch, and German perfects and C-gravitation, paper presented at ICLC 13, Northumbria University, UK.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue