Hopper Paul J. Hopper – författare

The earliest use of the term “grammaticalization” was to refer to the process whereby lexical words of a language (such as English keep in “he keeps bees”) become grammatical forms (such as the auxiliary in “he keeps looking at me”). Changes of this kind, which involve semantic fading and a downshift from a major to a minor category, have generally been agreed to come under the heading of grammaticalization. But other changes that equally contribute to new grammatical forms do not involve this kind of fading. In recent years, a debate has arisen over how to constrain the term theoretically. Is grammaticalization to be distinguished from “lexicalization”, the creation and fixing of new words out of older patterns of compounding? If so, how is the line to be drawn between a form that is grammatical and one that is lexical? Should the term “grammaticalization” be extended to the study of the origins of grammatical constructions in general? If so, it will have to include broader issues such as word order change and the reanalysis of phrases. What principles govern these processes? Is grammaticalization a unidirectional event, or can change occur in the reverse direction? The authors of the papers in this volume approach these important questions from a variety of data types, including historical texts, creoles, and a typologically broad sample of modern and ancient languages.

The volume''s central concern is grammatical voice, traditionally known as diathesis, and its classical manifestations as Active, Middle, and Passive. While numerous problems in the meaning, syntax, and morphology of these categories in Indo-European remain unsolved, their counterparts in more exotic languages have raised still further questions. What discourse functions and diachronic events unite ''voice'' as a recognizable phenomenon across languages? How are they typically grammaticalized? What stages do children go through in learning them? How does ''voice'' link up with ergativity and with other categories and constructions such as the Inverse and the Antipassive?The authors in this volume have different perspectives on these problems: they discuss voice, e.g., from a typological-universal view, in relation to language acquisition and to ergativity, and from diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives.

This volume of articles was prepared in honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the occasion of his 60th birthday. The papers are presented in two sections: I. Studies in Descriptive Linguistics, and II. Studies in Historical Linguistics. The volume contains contributions by R.M.W. Dixon, Ralph M. Goodman, Maurice Gross, Einar Haugen, David G. Hays, Archibald A. Hill, Mohammad Ali Jazayery, E.F.K. Koerner, D. Terence Langendoen, Don L.F. Nilsen, Arthur L. Palacas, Sol Saporta, Sanford A. Schane, Jacob Mey, Anders Ahlqvist, Simon C. Dik, Robert T. Harms, Saul Levin, Yakov Malkiel, D. Gary Miller, William G. Moulton, Edgar C. Polomé, Gary D. Prideaux, Luigi Romeo, Maria Tsiapera, Krystyna Wachowicz, Mridula Adenwala Durbin, Paul J. Hopper, Aaron Bar-Adon.

The verbal categories of tense and aspect have been studied traditionally from the point of view of their reference to the timing and time-perspective of the speaker’s reported experience. They are universal categories both in terms of the semantic-functional domain they cover as well as in terms of their syntactic and morphological realization. Nevertheless, their treatment in contemporary linguistics is often restricted and narrow based, often involving mere recapitulatoin of traditional semantic and morphotactic studies.The present volume arises out of a symposium held at UCLA in May 1979, in which a group of linguists gathered to re-open the subject of tense-and-aspect from a variety of perspectives, including — in addition to the traditional semantics — also discourse-pragmatics, psycholinguistics, child language, Creolization and diachronic change. The languages discussed in this volume include Russian, Turkish, English, Indonesian, Ameslan, Eskimo, various Creoles, Mandari, Hebrew, Bantu and others. The emphasis throughout is not only on the description of language-specific tense-aspect phenomenon, but more on the search for universal categories and principles which underlie the cross-language variety of tense and aspect. In particular, many of the participants address themselves to the relationship between propositional-semantics and discourse-pragmatics, in so far as these two functional domains interact within tense-aspect systems.