16For instance, unlike the English modals, the Dutch modals still have productive infinitive and past tense forms, and they are still inflected for person and number.

Jan Nuyts, Wim Caers & Henri-Joseph Goelen

*Corpus gesproken Nederlands. Version 2.0*. 2004. Leiden.

8 The Dutch modals, a paradigm?

Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo. 2015. Competing modals. *Diachronica* 32. 34–68.

*Oudnederlands woordenboek*. 2012. Online edition. https://gtb.inl.nl.

## **Chapter 9**

## **Grammaticalisation, schematisation and paradigmaticisation: How they intersect in the development of German degree modifiers**

## Jakob Neels

Leipzig University

## Stefan Hartmann

University of Düsseldorf

Grammaticalisation research has identified the tight integration of structures into paradigms as the final state of many grammaticalisation processes. Construction grammar approaches are particularly suitable for modelling such cases of paradigmaticisation since they invite researchers to study constructions not in isolation but in a wider network context. Drawing on this theoretical perspective, this paper investigates the grammaticalisation of a whole family of constructions. Based on synchronic and diachronic corpus studies, it presents quantitative analyses on the interrelated German constructions [*ein wenig* X] ('a little'), [*ein bissche*n X] ('a bit'), [*ein Quäntchen* X] (lit. 'a quantum'), [*ein Tick* X] (lit. 'a tick') and [*eine Idee* X] (lit. 'an idea'). The paper discusses to what extent their individual and shared developments can be understood in terms of paradigm formation, concluding that early paradigmaticisation involves emergent paradigms of multiple orders in the sense of constructions at different levels of schematicity. Change appears to be guided mainly by associations to micro-constructions and lower-level meso-constructions (e.g. Traugott 2007). Only in advanced stages of grammaticalisation, when microconstructions become sufficiently homogeneous, do high-level abstractions – i.e. paradigms in the traditional understanding of the term – act as decisive organisational forces. The key forces at the domain-general cognitive level are argued to be efficiency-driven automation and analogy.

Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann. 2022. Grammaticalisation, schematisation and paradigmaticisation: How they intersect in the development of German degree modifiers. In Gabriele Diewald & Katja Politt (eds.), *Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm*, 267–296. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5675855

Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

## **1 Introduction**

In constructionist approaches to language, the question of how the internal structure of the constructicon can be modelled has recently come to the centre of attention (see e.g. Diessel 2019, Sommerer & Smirnova 2020). The inventory of inheritance relations proposed by Goldberg (1995) has been complemented by various suggestions that put a particular emphasis on horizontal links, called "lateral links" by Norde & Morris (2018) or "sister" links by Audring (2019). Links between constructions at the same level of abstraction are particularly interesting from a usage-based point of view in that they can account for phenomena of language variation and change such as constructional alternations Perek (2015) and constructional contamination (Pijpops & Van de Velde 2016, Pijpops et al. 2018).

The conceptualisation of linguistic knowledge as a fine-grained taxonomic network of constructions leads us to the classic concept of paradigmatic, or, as de Saussure (1916) calls them, associative relations between linguistic units. As Boden (2005: 174) puts it, "[p]aradigmatic relations oppose a unit to others that could replace it in a given sequence". In diachronic research, grammaticalisation theory has identified the tight integration of structures into paradigms as a target of grammaticalisation processes. For example, Lehmann (2015) posits paradigmaticity as one of his well-known grammaticalisation parameters and paradigmatic integration, or paradigmaticisation, as one of the key processes involved in grammaticalisation. In this process, "grammaticalized elements join preexistent paradigms and assimilate to their other members" (Lehmann 2015: 144).

Overall, it is received wisdom that paradigmatic relations are essential to language structure in general, and that paradigms in the more specific sense of indexical, closed units of organisation are central to grammatical structure, most notably in categories such as tense, aspect or case. In usage-based construction grammar, paradigmatic associations are central as well, since they are tightly integrated into the taxonomic architecture of the constructicon. However, some usage-based findings also call into question the importance of paradigms as highly abstract generalisations, suggesting that language users rely on more local generalisations and lower-level schemas (e.g. Boas 2003, Dąbrowska 2008, Perek 2015: Ch. 5, Schmid 2020). Thus, the status of paradigms in usage-based construction grammar is ambivalent. The present paper therefore explores the question of how relevant paradigms are to grammatical structure from a cognitive-functional usage-based perspective. Theoretically, a range of answers to this question is conceivable, with opposing views such as the following: paradigms are merely an epiphenomenon of other motivations and mechanisms shaping grammar; or

they are essential organisational forces, and thus cognitive entities, themselves. The present study approaches this issue from the perspective of language change. It investigates to what extent paradigmatic forces are reflected in the diachronic development of a family of grammaticalising constructions. In particular, the selected test case is quantifier/degree-modifier constructions in German. This constructional family forms a layered domain of grammar (cf. Hopper 1991), with older members such as [*ein bisschen* X] ('a bit (of) X') and [*ein wenig* X] ('a little X') and less grammaticalised members such as [*ein Quäntchen* X] (lit. 'a quantum-dim (of) X') and [*eine Idee* X] (lit. 'an idea (of) X'). Through quantitative and qualitative corpus analyses, this study examines to what extent the grammaticalisation trajectories of each individual construction constitute independent changes or an interconnected process of paradigmaticisation influenced by network links as well as by overarching mid-level or high-level schemas. Despite some constructional individuality, the case study finds empirical evidence suggesting a scenario in which older constructions serve as attractor sets promoting the analogical recruitment of new members to an increasingly strengthened schema they collectively instantiate (cf., e.g., Amit 1989, Traugott 2008b, Verveckken 2015, Aaron 2016, De Smet & Fischer 2017). The organisational units contributing to this trend of convergence between multiple constructions appear to be partially schematic constructions at the mid-levels of abstraction. We reason that such a scenario is characteristic of early paradigmaticisation in the grammaticalisation of periphrastic constructions, and that high-level schemas – which come closest to the traditional idea of paradigms – exert an influence mainly in advanced stages of grammaticalisation and paradigmaticisation as typical of inflectional morphology.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the theoretical background, focusing on the status of paradigms in (diachronic) usage-based construction grammar. Section 3 presents the corpus-based case study and interprets its results against this theoretical background. Section 4 provides a more general discussion of the process of paradigmaticisation from the perspective of the constructionist concept of schematisation. Finally, Section 5 offers a brief conclusion.

## **2 Background: Paradigms and usage-based construction grammar**

The structuralist notion of *paradigmatic* comes in broader and in more narrow senses, and not all of them have a close equivalent in the theoretical apparatus

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

of usage-based construction grammar. In a broad sense, *paradigmatic* denotes a relation of choice between linguistic items that are associated with each other based on functional (e.g. synonymy) or formal (e.g. homonymy) features. As mentioned in Section 1, paradigmatic relations in this sense translate into links in constructional networks, such as subpart links and metaphorical extension links (e.g. Goldberg 1995) that connect constructions at the same level of schematicity (e.g. *arm* and *leg*; ditransitive construction and *for*-benefactive construction). In a narrow sense, *paradigmatic* and *paradigm* can be understood as sets with a fixed number of mutually exclusive forms whose meanings are indexical in that they are largely determined by their relations within those closed-class sets. Prototypical instances of this type of paradigm are found in grammatical domains such as tense, person, voice and case. Such grammatical paradigms clearly differ from loose sets of open-class items such as lexemes being paradigmatically related via various sense relations. Construction grammar understates this difference in tightness and closedness since it represents lexical items and grammatical items in a uniform format within a lexicon–grammar continuum (cf. Diewald 2020). In response to this problem, several construction grammarians have recently proposed theoretical add-ons: consider Booij's (e.g. Booij & Masini 2015) concept of second-order schemas, Audring's (e.g. 2019) sister schemas, Diewald's (2020) hyper-constructions and Leino's (Leino 2022 [this volume]) metaconstructions. Advances in constructionist theorising are needed to model paradigms more comprehensively.

Figure 1: Constructional levels, exemplified with a network of English

A classification that is very much in line with such network models is found in Traugott's (e.g. 2007) notion of constructional levels in terms of micro-, mesoand macro-constructions. Using the example of English future constructions (cf. Trousdale & Norde 2013: 36), Figure 1 visualises the basic idea behind these con-

structional levels. Micro-constructions, i.e. individual (largely) substantive construction types, can be subsumed under a single highly abstract schema, the macro-construction, if they share the same basic function. In Figure 1, the five formally diverse micro-constructions at the bottom can be taken to be weakly linked at the macro-level based on their shared basic function of marking futurity. In-between, meso-constructions, i.e. mid-level schemas, unite subsets of similarly-behaving micro-constructions with a shared structure. Of the five micro-constructions used for illustration, [*will* v] and [*shall* v] are structurally alike (e.g. v as bare infinitive) and so are [be *going to* v] and non-standard [be *fixing to* v] (e.g. progressive). Unlike [be *about to* v], each of these two pairs of micro-constructions can therefore be subsumed under one meso-construction, respectively. The higher the number of micro-constructions that collectively constitute one meso-construction, the more entrenched and productive this meso-construction tends to become. Meso-constructions are hypothesised to influence neighbouring constructions in the network through the domain-general cognitive process of analogy. Diachronically, constructional clusters headed by well-entrenched meso-constructions may attract other/novel micro-constructions, leading to the growth of a family of constructions. As detailed in the corpus study further below, Traugott's constructional levels thus qualify as a valuable descriptive tool for studying the reorganisation of the constructicon.

However, it has been a point of debate whether all of these constructional levels are psychologically plausible. Usage-based linguists have questioned whether patterns at the highest levels of abstraction/schematicity (e.g. fully schematic argument structure constructions) are represented in the minds of most speakers. Possibly, high-level generalisations are no more than linguists' constructs emerging from the analysis of aggregated usage data. As hinted at by some psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence (e.g. Boas 2003, Dąbrowska 2008, 2015, Perek 2015: Ch. 5, Schmid & Mantlik 2015: Ch. 5), the actual generalisations of individual speakers may stop at the mid-level of partially schematic constructions. In other words, mid- and low-level constructions appear to be the key material of linguistic knowledge thanks to their greater cognitive accessibility (i.e. entrenchment). From this perspective, high-level schemas, including paradigms, seem to be of relatively little psycholinguistic importance.

Yet, other findings from psycholinguistically minded grammaticalisation research indirectly stress the importance of paradigms. As argued most convincingly in Lehmann (2017), grammaticalisation is essentially a linguistic instance of cognitive automation, i.e. the domain-general process that turns more controlled, intentional activity into efficient, unconscious, rigid behaviour (cf. Schneider &

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

Shiffrin 1977, Logan 1988, Givón 1989: Ch. 7; Moors & Houwer 2006). Automation streamlines the execution of recurrent tasks, and grammaticalisation does exactly that in language: it creates efficient solutions for frequently recurring communicative tasks, such as signalling futurity, plurality, possession or negation. Paradigms are an expected outcome of automation in language since they are rigid closed-class structures that can be executed with minimal attention. They allow speakers to maximise the processing capacities available for more complex, discursively primary communicative tasks (cf. Harder & Boye 2011). Humans' efficiency-driven capacity for automation thus seems to be a key factor underlying the trend that grammaticalisation processes are directed towards paradigms as a target state. From this perspective, paradigm formation is essential to language processing.

In short, *paradigm* and *paradigmaticisation* can be translated into usage-based constructionist concepts as follows. The synchronic notion of paradigms roughly corresponds to higher-level schemas and the "horizontal" associations between the constructions sanctioned by these schemas. It must be noted, however, that there is currently no single conventional solution in construction grammar regarding the exact types of schemas and links that fully capture grammatical paradigms in the narrow sense (see Smirnova & Sommerer 2020 for a problemoriented discussion of different conceptions of nodes and vertical as well as horizontal links in constructional networks). The diachronic process of paradigmatisation is then a process of schema formation, i.e. schematisation, and of the gradual convergence of subordinate constructions into an increasingly tight set (cf. Diewald & Smirnova 2012). Two basic cognitive mechanisms of paradigmaticisation appear to be analogy and automation; a basic motivation is processing efficiency.

Based on the theoretical considerations presented above, we derive the following working hypotheses for the present case study on paradigmaticisation:

In the case study presented below, our goal is to link these theoretical assumptions with observations based on the diachronic development and synchronic behaviour of one particular family of constructions. On a terminological note, we employ the term *constructional family* as an exploratory notion: unlike *paradigm* and constructional levels like *meso-construction*, which are meant to capture mental associations and representations, *constructional family* more loosely refers to a group of linguistic expressions with functional and/or formal commonalities at a pre-theoretical level.

## **3 Case study: The development of German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions**

Parts of the present investigation draw on findings from a previous case study (Neels & Hartmann 2018) focusing on the diachrony of the frequent German degree modifiers [*ein wenig* X] (' a little X') and [*ein bisschen* X] ('a bit (of) X'). In that study, we extended our account of the diachronic development to other structurally similar quantifier/degree-modifier constructions with low usage frequencies, but we did not provide systematic corpus data on these less established modifiers. The present follow-up study adds these data, providing quantitative corpus analyses on three more members of the constructional family: [*ein Quäntchen* X] (lit. 'a quantum (of) X'), [*ein Tick* X] (lit. 'a tick (of) X') and [*eine Idee* X] (lit. 'an idea (of) X'). Section 3.1 first introduces the data and methods used in this investigation. Section 3.2 sketches out three possible grammaticalisation scenarios leading to degree-modifier functions, before moving on to the results. Section 3.3 reviews the main results on *ein wenig* and *ein bisschen*. Section 3.4 details the results on the less grammaticalised expressions *ein Quäntchen*, *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*, and provides a synthesis of our earlier findings and the present analyses.

## **3.1 Data and methods**

Five members of the expanding family of German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions are under scrutiny in the present investigation.1 These five microconstructions are exemplified in (1) to (5) below.

1Cross-linguistically, structurally similar constructions include English *a bit* (*of* ), *a shred of* and *a bunch of* (e.g. Brems 2007, Traugott 2008b, Shao et al. 2019), Spanish *un montón de* 'a heap of' and *un hatajo de* 'a herd of' (e.g. Verveckken 2015), and Dutch *massa*(*'s*) 'mass(es)' (e.g. De Clerck & Colleman 2013) among others.

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

	- b.  'I'd love to drink a glass, in freedom's honour, if only the wine were *a bit* better.' (1790, DTA)
	- c. Rück doch mal *'n bischen* den Tisch! 'Move the table *a bit*!' (1890, DTA)

In present-day German, [*ein bisschen* X] ('a bit (of) X') can be considered the "ideal" representative of the constructional family, being highly frequent and productive and exhibiting all prototypical features. Typical family members are made up of (i) the indefinite article *ein*, (ii) a noun denoting a small unit, and (iii) an open slot that can be filled by items from various word classes. Different word classes hosted in the constructions are associated with different constructional functions. Partitive and quantifier uses are associated with noun modification, typically with concrete nouns and mass nouns (cf. Examples 1a, 3), respectively. Constructs modifying adjectives (1b, 2, 4, 5), verbs (1c) or other parts of speech generally fulfil degree-modifier functions. As detailed further below, individual members of this family of quantifier/degree-modifier constructions differ in their constraints and preferences regarding the syntactic categories sanctioned in their productive slot.

Usage data reflecting the diachronic trajectories and potential mutual influences of the five micro-constructions were extracted from several historical and contemporary German corpora. In particular, historical data on all five constructions was collected from the *Deutsches Textarchiv* (DTA; German Text Archive; Geyken & Gloning 2015); additional diachronic data on [*ein bisschen* X] and [*ein wenig* X] ('a little X') were extracted from the historical component of the *Deutsches Referenzkorpus* (DeReKo-HIST; German Reference Corpus; Kupietz & Keibel 2009); and we searched a tagged synchronic component of that corpus, DeReKo-Tagged-C, for present-day uses of the low-frequency constructions [*ein Quäntchen* X] (lit. 'a quantum (of) X'), [*ein Tick* X] (lit. 'a tick (of) X') and [*eine Idee* X] (lit. 'an idea (of) X'). For extracting these three younger constructions, the following queries were used:

```
REG(^Idee$|^Tick$|^Quäntchen$) /+w1 MORPH(A)
REG(^Tick$|^Quäntchen$) /+w1 MORPH(N)
REG(^Idee$|^Tick$|^Quäntchen$) /+w1 MORPH(ADV)
```
False hits as well as duplicates were removed manually, and the remaining data were coded for the part of speech of the modified element. In total, this procedure yielded 44 instances of *eine Idee*, 1,777 of *ein Tick*, and 1,694 of *ein Quäntchen* from the contemporary DeReKo-Tagged-C data. Historical data of these three constructions are fairly rare, as described in Section 3.4 further below. For (*ein*) *bisschen* and *ein wenig*, the dataset extracted from DTA amd DeReKo-HIST comprised 3,226 and 15,783 historical tokens, respectively,(see Neels & Hartmann (2018) for details).

## **3.2 Diachronic paths leading to degree-modifier functions**

Despite the structural similarity of the German degree modifiers, their individual origins and developmental paths seem to be fairly diverse. We consider three possible grammaticalisation scenarios giving rise to such micro-constructions. The plausibility of each scenario for the German constructions at hand will be discussed in the subsequent sections in the light of our corpus data.

In the first scenario, a lexical source construction grammaticalises "under its own steam" along a cross-linguistically attested grammaticalisation path. This scenario theoretically entails a highly gradual development with discernable chronological stages and with little to no analogical influence by extant grammatical constructions. It roughly corresponds to what Lehmann (2004, 2015) calls "pure" grammaticalisation or "innovation", contrasting with his notions

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

of "analogically-oriented" grammaticalisation and "renovation". According to Lehmann (e.g. 2004: 161), only the former type, i.e. pure grammaticalisation, may give rise to a genuinely new grammatical category (but cf. De Smet 2014: Section 4.1). In such cases of category emergence, meso-constructions can be expected to play no significant role. In the case and time frame investiaged here, they potentially do since categories like quantifier and degree modifier are in place and instantiated by multiple expressions of German. Under these conditions, applying the theoretical concept of pure grammaticalisation is not expedient. We therefore define the first scenario by a feature that is empirically more accessible, namely the incremental progression of grammaticalisation along a cline. In line with previous research on the diachrony of similar degree modifiers in English (esp. Traugott 2008a,b), the grammaticalisation path applying to the German constructions is likely to be as follows: pre-partitive > partitive > quantifier > degree modifier (e.g. *the bite of an apple* > *bits of bread* > *a bit of work* > *a bit tired*).

In the second scenario, the micro-construction starts as a fixed idiomatic expression but expands and develops a productive slot. For example, it is conceivable that the degree modifier [*ein Tick* X] started out as a fairly fixed expression combining with a particular temporal adjective, as in *einen Tick schneller* 'a tick/bit faster' or *einen Tick zu spät* 'a tick/bit too late', which are conventional collocations and in which the noun *Tick* 'tick (of a clock)' retains a concrete timerelated meaning. Possibly, the expression has been gradually increasing its productivity through item-based expansion from one temporal adjective to others, to non-temporal adjectives and eventually to other word classes. This scenario differs from the first one in that it does not presuppose earlier stages with partitive and quantifier uses.

In the third hypothesised scenario, analogically driven grammaticalisation, a micro-construction directly joins an existing degree-modifier meso-construction, with firmly entrenched schema members serving as role models. As introduced in Section 2, it is this scenario that demonstrates the organisational force of paradigms-as-schemas most clearly. Whereas in the first scenario the process of paradigmatic integration is likely to become evident only relatively late in the grammaticalisation process (cf. stage IV in the model by Diewald & Smirnova 2012), paradigmatic integration is at the heart of the beginning of grammaticalisation scenarios that are chiefly determined by analogy.

Although the three scenarios are theoretically distinct, they are not entirely mutually exclusive. Mixed trajectories and influences are possible, and distinguishing the three scenarios on the basis of usage data is not straightforward. Still, there are some fairly reliable variables in usage that help disentangle the hypothesised scenarios. The following analyses focus on four parameters:

More than in the analogically driven grammaticalisation scenario or the scenario from fixed to productive expression, the isolated grammaticalisation of a micro-construction along a grammaticalisation path correlates with, and even depends on, increasingly high frequencies of use. The rationale behind this correlation is that high frequency – token frequency especially, but also cooccurrence and type frequency – appears to be a crucial causal force in independent/"pure" grammaticalisation, fuelling several underlying cognitive processes such as chunking, habituation, neuromotor automation and schema entrenchment (Bybee 2003, Krug 2003, Diessel & Hilpert 2016, Neels 2020). Thus, the scenario of independent grammaticalisation along a cline can be expected to differ from the other two scenarios with respect to diachronic token-frequency levels and, above all, with respect to the chronology of functional expansion. What makes the scenario of grammaticalisation by analogy empirically distinguishable from the scenario of a fixed expression turning productive is patterns of behavioural convergence between constructions and patterns of collocational range.

## **3.3** *Ein wenig* **and** *ein bisschen*

The quantifier/degree-modifier constructions *ein wenig* and *ein bisschen* can arguably be used largely interchangeably in present-day German, although the former variant – which is also the older one – may be seen as slightly more formal. *Ein wenig* has largely ousted the yet older variant *ein lützel*, which used to be fairly frequent in the Middle High German period2 but had fallen out of use in most German dialects by the 17th century (see Neels & Hartmann 2018: 143).

*Ein bisschen* undergoes a development that bears striking similarities to the evolution of English *a bit* as outlined by Traugott (Traugott 2007, 2008a,b). Like its English equivalent, *bisschen* derives from the (diminutivised version of the)

2This study adopts the traditional periodisation of German language history: c. 750–1050 Old High German; 1050–1350 Middle High German; 1350–1650 Early New High German; 1650– today New High German.

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

noun *Bissen* 'bite', and just like English *a bit*, it tends to combine with concrete nouns as in (6) at first before it comes to modify abstract nouns to an ever larger extent (7), as Neels & Hartmann (2018) show, taking data from the mid-17th to the mid-20th century into account.

While the construction tends to combine with nouns in the early stages of its development, the proportion of verbs modified by *ein bisschen* increases steadily (Neels & Hartmann 2018: 150), as in (8). A slight upward trend can also be seen for adjectives, as in (9), although the pattern is less clear here, especially due to data sparsity in the early time slices analysed.

One striking result of our previous corpus study is that the distributional characteristics of *ein bisschen* seem to align over time with those of the older *ein wenig* construction, especially with regard to relative frequencies of nouns, verbs and adjectives modified by the two constructions. Furthermore, we observed a diachronic shift in the variability of determiners in [det *bisschen* x] towards the increasingly fixed string *ein bisschen*. These changes rendered the *ein bisschen* construction structurally very similar to *ein wenig*, suggesting some analogical influence by the latter construction.

Other aspects of the diachrony of the *ein bisschen* construction, in contrast, are more indicative of a fairly independent grammaticalisation process. For one thing, the attested shift from concrete to abstract nouns and from noun modification to adjective and verb modification closely matches the steps on the cline

from partitive to quantifier to degree modifier. That is, the historical usage data examined in Neels & Hartmann (2018) support the conclusion that *ein bisschen* passed through the stages of the grammaticalisation path in successive order. Another relevant piece of evidence is the long-term token-frequency profile of *ein bisschen*. As plotted in Figure 2, the grammaticalisation of the *ein bisschen* construction is accompanied by a pronounced increase in absolute token frequency.3 The written records are, however, likely to depict this increase with a considerable temporal delay owing to the fact that, until the mid-19th century at least, *ein bisschen* was evaluated as colloquial (see Tiefenbach 1987: 6).

Thus, for *ein bisschen*, the usage-based parameters introduced in Section 3.2 tentatively suggest a fairly typical case of grammaticalisation whereby one particular micro-construction incrementally emancipated from its lexical source through frequency effects – however, possibly with additional support from extant constructions acting as analogical models. Interestingly, the picture emerging for the younger German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions examined next is notably different.

## **3.4** *Ein Quäntchen, ein Tick, eine Idee*

The modifiers [*ein Quäntchen* X] (lit. 'a quantum (of) X'), [*ein Tick* X] (lit. 'a tick (of) X') and [*eine Idee* X] (lit. 'an idea (of) X') are clearly more constrained and much less frequent in contemporary usage than the *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig* constructions. Table 1 (page 280) provides a first overview of the usage patterns of *ein Quäntchen*, *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*. In the 1.5-billion-word corpus DeReKo-Tagged-C, none of the three constructions is attested much more frequently than about 1,500 times, which yields normalised token frequencies of merely about one occurrence per million words (cf. *ein bisschen* in Figure 2). The modifier [*eine Idee* X] is particularly infrequent, with 0.03 tokens per million words. Degree-modifier uses of the three expressions do exist, but their developments constitute cases of low-frequency grammaticalisation, a phenomenon that is somewhat problematic for frequency-effect explanations in the Bybeean tradition (Hoffmann 2004, Brems 2007, Neels 2020).

Accordingly, only few historical tokens of the three younger quantifier/degreemodifier constructions can be found in the smaller DTA database. The corpus

3The DWDS corpora are used here to visualise the increase in frequency as it is much larger than the database we used for Neels & Hartmann (2018); however, the findings based on our own data, covering the time span from c. 1650 to 1900, are very much in line with what Figure 2 shows (see Neels & Hartmann 2018: 148).

Figure 2: The normalised absolute token frequency of (*ein*) *bisschen* for the period from 1600 to the present; reproduced from the DWDS; based on aggregated data from the reference corpora and the newspaper corpora used by the DWDS (retrieved on 3 September 2020)

Table 1: Overview of the corpus data for the three younger constructions

searches returned no more than 7 tokens of [*eine Idee* X] and no quantifier or degree-modifier uses of *ein Tick* at all. As for *ein Quäntchen*, the historical picture is slightly different. The expression originated as a commercial weight, *Quentchen*, i.e. the fourth or fifth part of one lot.4 About 90% of the 158 DTA tokens attested between 1756 and 1910 are clear instances of *Quäntchen/Quentchen* being used as a technical measure, as exemplified in (10); a few tokens are ambiguous, leaning towards more colloquial uses, as in (11).

(10) Die Kuhmilch enthält endlich an Ram zwanzig *Quentchen*, an fester Butter sechs *Quentchen*, an dichtem Käse drei Unzen, an eingedickter Wadikke zehn *Quentchens*

'Cow's milk ultimately contains 20 *Quäntchen* of cream, 6 *Quäntchen* of solid butter, 3 ounces of thick cheese, 10 *Quäntchen* of concentrated whey' (1756, DTA: Haller)

(11) Ein *Quentchen* Mutterwitz ist besser, als ein Zentner Schulwitz. 'One *Quäntchen*/A *bit* of mother wit is better than one centner of school wit.'

(1762, DTA: Rabener)

Through folk-etymological reanalysis, as the commercial weight of *Quentchen* became uncommon in the 20th century, the expression was interpreted as a diminutive form related to 'quantum'.5 It survives as a lower-frequency quantifier and, to a certain extent, as degree modifier, as quantified below.

In addition to the total frequencies of *ein Quäntchen*, *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* in DeReKo-Tagged-C, Table 1 shows the distribution of parts of speech across the three constructions. This provides a first glimpse into their functional commonalities and relative differences in contemporary usage. Part of the information of Table 1 is condensed into Figure 3, which visualises the distribution of nouns, verbs and adjectives in the three constructions. Together, Table 1 and Figure 3 reveal that all three constructions exhibit clear preferences with regard to the parts of speech with which they combine. *Eine Idee* and *ein Tick* combine mainly with adjectives, more precisely with adjectives in the comparative or with the degree particle *zu* 'too'. *Ein Quäntchen*, on the other hand, shows a strong preference for nouns, while also combining with graded adjectives and other parts of speech from time to time. Thus, *ein Quäntchen* serves primarily as a quantifier whereas *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* are used mostly for degree-modifying purposes.

4Compare Latin *quintus* 'the fifth'.

5Note that the spelling was changed from *Quentchen* to *Quäntchen* in the German spelling reform in 1996. This is why most of the cited examples are spelled with an 〈e〉 instead of an 〈ä〉.

Figure 3: Distribution of nouns, adjectives, and verbs in the three younger constructions

At a more fine-grained level of analysis, Table 2 (page 284) lists the most frequent lexical items occurring in each of the constructions. Two things become immediately clear in these lists of collocates. Firstly, there is a considerable amount of overlap between the lexical items that preferentially occur in the three constructions. For example, *mehr* is a top-three collexeme in each construction, including the *ein Quäntchen* construction despite the fact that this construction is dispreferred as a degree modifier. Secondly, their use seems to be largely constrained to a relatively small set of lexemes, which sets them apart from the *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig* constructions discussed above.

Some collocations are particularly idiomatic and dominant in current usage. Most notably, combinations with the noun *Glück* 'luck' make up about 80% of all *ein Quäntchen* tokens found in DeReKo-Tagged-C, and *Glück* is more than 25 times more frequent than the second-ranked collexeme. Also note that, in line with the prototypical phrase *ein Quäntchen Glück*, the other top collexemes of *ein Quäntchen* listed in Table 2 are nouns that have positive connotations as well. This specific collocational pattern is not to be expected solely on the basis of the construction's past as a commercial weight. Based on this origin, one might expect an early grammaticalisation trajectory that involves high relative frequencies of (mass) nouns in general, but not necessarily the dominance of one particular noun. However, it seems that, to a large extent, the construction owes its present-day existence as a low- to mid-productive quantifier to the strongly entrenched collocation *ein Quäntchen Glück*. Conceivably, the low-frequency [*ein Quäntchen* X] construction also receives some analogical support through the firmly established *ein bisschen* construction, with which *ein Quäntchen* shares associative links thanks to similarities such as the diminutive suffix *-chen*. Overall, however, the most informative parameter for the diachrony of *ein Quäntchen* appears to be the parameter of collocational range. It strongly points to the second grammaticalisation scenario introduced in Section 3.2, i.e. a process whereby a fixed idiomatic expression develops an open slot with a certain degree of productivity.

Contemporary corpus data demonstrates that the *ein Quäntchen* construction is barely entering more advanced stages of grammaticalisation in which it expands from quantifier (95%) to degree-modifier uses (5%), whereas *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* are first and foremost degree modifiers and only rarely used as quantifiers. Their usage profiles thus yield the somewhat strange picture that *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*, as it were, skipped the presumably less grammaticalised quantifier stage on the grammaticalisation path presented in Section 3.2 (pre-partitive > partitive > quantifier > degree modifier). Interestingly, De Clerck & Brems (2016), studying similar English constructions with size nouns (e.g. *mass*(*es*), *heap*(*s*),

Table 2: Top 20 modified items for each construction (without hapax legomena).

*bunch*), also observe trajectories with unattested (supposedly) intermediate grammaticalisation stages. The parameter we labelled "chronology of functional expansion" suggests that the degree modifiers *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* have not evolved through independent grammaticalisation processes. Given the remarkably low absolute token frequencies of the two constructions, also the frequency parameter speaks against the scenario of independent grammaticalisation. Moreover, unlike in the case of *ein Quäntchen*, the analysis on collocational range has not revealed any highly dominant collexemes for [*ein Tick* X] or [*eine Idee* X]. This makes the grammaticalisation scenario from fixed to productive expression seem less likely for these two constructions. Both constructions, we argue below, owe their existence or emergence largely to pre-existing templates in the modern German network of quantifier/degree-modifier constructions.

Diachronic corpus data suggest that *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* gained some ground only around 1900. [*eine Idee* X] presumably emerged in the 19th century. The 7 tokens extracted from the DTA stem from that time; one of them is reproduced in (12).

(12) Ceara: Eine der Maranham sehr ähnliche Baumwolle, vielleicht sogar *eine Idee* besser.

'Ceará: a type of cotton very similar to Maranhão cotton, possibly even *a bit* (lit.: *idea*) better.'

(1889, DTA: Justi)

With not a single token in the DTA data, the modifier [*ein Tick* X] seems to be even younger than *eine Idee*.

The development of *eine Idee*, *ein Tick* or any other German quantifier/degreemodifier construction grammaticalising during the 20th century must be understood in the context of a variety of co-existing near-synonymous constructions. Not only are there the three other constructions analysed in the present study, i.e. *ein wenig*, *ein bisschen* and *ein Quäntchen*, but the constructional family comprises several more lower-frequency members, two of which are exemplified in (13) and (14).

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

By the end of the 19th century at the very latest (but probably much earlier; recall the observations on the frequency profile and colloquial status of *ein bisschen* in Section 3.3), constructional network constellations had developed that assist the grammaticalisation of novel quantifier/degree-modifier constructions. Multiple micro-constructions, above all the highly grammaticalised *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig*, had entered into a paradigmatic relation. As discussed in Section 2, the coexistence of multiple formally and functionally similar expressions, some of which being highly frequent, assist the recognition and entrenchment of an overarching mid-level schema. In the present case, this schema or mesoconstruction features an emergent slot with the feature 'small/minor unit': [*ein* small/minor-unit x]. Such a meso-construction, together with some frequent members, can be conceived of as an attractor set for the development of novel micro-constructions. According to this line of reasoning, *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* were attracted to the existing, increasingly strengthened quantifier/degree-modifier meso-construction in a scenario of analogically driven grammaticalisation. This account is empirically supported above all by the observation that the diachronic context expansion of *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* did not proceed along a multi-stage grammaticalisation path but rather resembles an instant recruitment as degree modifiers.

The notion of a German quantifier/degree-modifier meso-construction, however, needs some refinement to do justice to the usage profiles of its hypothesised members. This meso-construction should not be conceived of as a single homogeneous mid-level schema but rather as an assembly with multiple subschemas. For one thing, not all associated micro-constructions are equally productive as both quantifiers and degree modifiers. As shown in the corpus analysis above, degree-modifier uses of *ein Quäntchen* are uncommon, while quantifier uses have low relative frequencies in the usage profiles of *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*. What is more, even within one of the two functional domains, individual micro-constructions may pattern more locally. For instance, the degree-modifier constructs of *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* in the corpus have been found to combine overwhelmingly with graded adjectives. Such construction-specific differences make a unified account seem somewhat problematic. Clearly, each micro-construction has its own unique properties and history. However, it is important to stress that there are certain dominant micro-constructions that freely participate in most or all quantifier and degree-modifier subschemas. The degree-modifier subschema with graded adjectives, which is central to *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*, is also served by *ein bisschen* (15) and *ein wenig* (16) with a substantial (absolute and relative) token frequencies.

Highly productive members such as *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig* can be expected to serve as prototypes of the constructional family. Other, less productive members with more specific constraints are associated with the prototype, and they are associated with each other through family resemblance (see Traugott 2008b: 33 for a similar account of English [n *of* np] patterns).

There is not only a great formal similarity between the family members but also a considerable functional overlap regarding the quantifier and degree-modifier subschemas served by them. This hypothesised network constellation with interrelated quantifier and degree-modifier subschemas at the meso-level can be argued to promote the analogical recruitment of novel micro-constructions as well as the analogical realignment of existing ones, turning some quantifiers into degree modifiers and vice versa. Without the support of a quantifier/degreemodifier meso-construction and subschemas linking extant micro-constructions, the observed emergence of a variety of lower-frequency degree modifiers and quantifiers would be hard to account for.

## **4 Schematisation and paradigmaticisation in morphosyntax**

The grammaticalisation of individual micro-constructions and constructional families involves schematisation in multiple ways. In micro-constructions, shifts towards grammatical functions translate into increasing schematicity not only at the level of constructional semantics but also at the level of the constructional slots as reflected by the types of collexemes entering these slots (cf. Perek 2020). In other words, the formerly more contentful, referential meaning of a grammaticalising micro-construction becomes more abstract and more schematic in this regard, and the slots can be understood as schematic categories constraining the host-class (Himmelmann 2004) of the construction. In the present case study, it has been illustrated that the slots of less grammaticalised quantifier/degreemodifier constructions are less schematic and more constrained. The [*ein Quäntchen* X] construction, for example, seems to be structured around one prototypical exemplar, *ein Quäntchen Glück*. The slot of the highly grammaticalised [*ein*

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

*bisschen* X], in contrast, has hardly any semantic constraints and hosts virtually all parts of speech. Another dimension of schematisation is the formation and increasing entrenchment of higher-level schemas, which we refer to as meso-constructions (and macro-constructions) and which emerge as generalisations over multiple structurally similar micro-constructions. At high levels of abstraction, such as a potential macro-construction for German quantifiers and/or degreemodifiers, the micro-constructions studied here might be linked to formally dissimilar, but functionally related constructions such as the single-word modifiers *etwas* 'somewhat', *leicht* 'slightly', *sehr* 'very' and *viel* 'much'. However, there appears to be little empirical ground for the postulation of such a highly abstract link as a potential source of mutual influence in the development of such formally dissimilar micro-constructions. There is more reason to argue that change in the early grammaticalisation and paradigmaticisation of syntactic constructions is guided mainly by associations to micro-constructions and lower-level meso-constructions.

There are signs of analogical and thus paradigmatic forces, but this influence is limited in that the micro-constructions in our case study each have their unique diachronic trajectories and retain idiosyncratic properties. For instance, although the degree modifiers *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*, skipping the quantifier stage expected in a scenario of independent grammaticalisation, appear to have evolved through analogy, their use has been shown to be largely restricted to one specific subtype of degree modification, namely combinations with graded adjectives. Possibly, such construction-specific properties are effects of persistence (Hopper 1991) based on features of the original lexical source construction. They can, however, also be thought of as subschemas at the meso-level if there is a subset of two or more micro-constructions within the family that share a particular distribution. In our case study, this applies to *ein Tick* and *eine Idee*, and this also applies to *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig* to the extent that a considerable proportion of their uses match the hypothesised degree-modifier subschema for graded adjectives. From this perspective, the observation that some grammaticalising micro-constructions pattern more locally in usage than might be expected need not always result from micro-level persistence (or competition) but may be linked to meso-constructional subschemas (cf. Langacker 2000: 29). The lower the degree of schematicity, the more accessible a template tends to be – that is what a lot of usage-based research suggests (cf. Section 2). Accordingly, novel micro-constructions in analogically driven grammaticalisation are likely to be most strongly attracted to the lowest-level schemas entrenched at the meso-level.

Families of grammatical(ising) constructions form a layered (Hopper 1991) domain of grammar shaped by diverse, partly opposing forces. Older and younger

micro-constructions both support and compete with each other (cf. Delorge et al. 2014, De Smet & Fischer 2017, De Smet et al. 2018). The present case study has focused on the role of support, but the aspect of competition in the German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions is also evident, for example in the aforementioned disappearance of the old *ein lützel* construction accompanying the rise of *ein wenig*. Another possible outcome of competition is division of labour and thereby the specialisation of micro-constructions, which might be the fate of some of the lower-frequency expressions studied here (e.g. *ein Quäntchen*, *ein Tick*). At the same time, analogical forces cause micro-constructions to converge with respect to certain formal and/or functional features, creating more homogenous constructional families. It is remarkable that this convergence and growth has been occurring in the German constructional family under scrutiny, when considering that some of the micro-constructions originated from fairly diverse lexical sources, including concrete nouns like *Biss*(*chen*) 'bite', abstract nouns like *Idee* 'idea', a commercial weight in the case of *Quentchen/Quäntchen*, and even an adjective in the case of *wenig* 'minor, small'. The observed convergence and growth seem to be caused, above all, by the pervasive process of analogical thinking and pattern matching, i.e. the establishment of form–function associations across constructions (e.g. Fischer 2011, Traugott & Trousdale 2013: esp. Section <IP_ADDRESS>). Collectively, the diachronic trajectories of the micro-constructions examined here amount to a macro-process that can be thought of as (early) paradigmaticisation.

The macro-process of paradigmaticisation is a long-term effect of numerous (low-level) constructional changes whose directionality is constrained above all by the domain-general cognitive processes of analogy and automation. Early and advanced paradigmaticisation seem to involve different kinds of paradigmsas-schemas and different degrees of automation typically linked to the transition from syntax to morphology. In early paradigmaticisation, as typical of sets of fairly heterogeneous periphrastic constructions in syntax, the parts of the network seized by this process are micro-constructions as well as lower-level schemas at the meso-level. As long as the members of the constructional family exhibit rather heterogeneous properties, high-level generalisations such as macro-constructions can be expected to be only weakly present (if at all) in speakers' minds. This stage of paradigmaticisation involves emergent paradigms that are still relatively open; micro-constructions that are part of such emergent paradigms may be quasi-synonymous, and their use is still optional (cf. Diewald & Smirnova 2012). This phase is witnessed in the case of the quantifier/degreemodifier constructions in present-day German. In more advanced stages of paradigmaticisation, the relations between the family members become more rigid.

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

The members tend to be formally more homogeneous, but quasi-synonymous uses have given way to contrastive meanings; and the paradigms are essentially closed. This stage of paradigmaticisation corresponds to degrees of grammaticalisation that are prototypically associated with (inflectional) morphology rather than periphrastic syntactic constructions. It seems that only as a constructional family approaches such late stages in its life cycle do the relations of its members become defined by one organisational unit at a very high level of abstraction.

Grammatical(ising) micro-constructions are not teleologically determined to become more homogeneous and meet in paradigms; still, this direction of change is highly likely. Closing this section, we summarise what we argue to be the reasons for this long-term trend. One causal factor is how the domain-general cognitive process of analogy shapes language structure (e.g. Anttila 2003). The present paper has discussed the constructional network constellations – "attractor sets" involving meso-constructions – that promote the analogical emergence and/or change of micro-constructions. These analogical forces are certainly influential, but even beyond analogy as a cognitive basis of paradigmatic relations there are forces that lead grammaticalising micro-construction in similar directions, making them more alike as well. These directions are the well-known tendencies of semantic generalisation and morphosyntactic fixing and reduction. Cognitive mechanisms and motivations underlying these strongly directional changes in grammaticalisation include chunking, increasing ease of retrievability, habituation, neuromotor practice and frequency-induced predictability among others. Many of the underlying processes can be understood as concomitants of the even more general cognitive process of automation (Bybee 2010, Neels 2020). The asymmetry inherent in automated versus more controlled activity should be considered a cognitive key factor accounting for the unidirectionality of grammaticalisation: since highly automated grammatical operators are withdrawn from conscious control, they are very unlikely to be manipulated for more contentful, referential – i.e. more "lexical" – purposes (cf. Lehmann 2017, Haspelmath 1999). Automation serves efficiency; and, as pointed out in Section 2, grammatical paradigms represent efficient solutions in processing. In short, at the general level of language-related cognition and performance, paradigm formation is governed by efficiency, automation and analogy; at the level of linguistic representations, the locus of change can be modelled as clusters of interrelated schemas, above all micro- and meso-constructions.

## **5 Conclusion**

This paper has investigated a family of German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions against the theoretical background of construction grammar and in the light of research on grammaticalisation. Regarding the theoretical background, construction grammar has been shown to have a somewhat ambivalent relationship to paradigms: some proponents of constructionist approaches to language have rejected the concept, others have suggested that it might be theoretically useful for capturing horizontal relations in the constructicon, especially in the domain of mid-level constructions. Following up on a previous study showing that the development of *ein bisschen* and *ein wenig* bears many similarities to the development of English *a bit* in the sense of a gradual extension from more concrete to more abstract readings and from quantifier to degree-modifier uses, we have investigated the low-frequency constructions [*eine Idee* X], [*ein Tick* X], and [*ein Quäntchen* X] in contemporary German. The overall picture emerging from the corpus analyses is that the older quantifier/degree-modifier constructions served as attractor sets for an increasingly strengthened mid-level schema, i.e. meso-construction, thereby promoting the analogically driven grammaticalisation of younger micro-constructions. This scenario is supported by the finding that younger micro-constructions (i) approximate the usage patterns of more established ones, and (ii) "skip" stages on the cross-linguistically attested grammaticalisation path pre-partitive > partitive > quantifier > degree modifier. For modelling such linguistic developments, the constructionist idea of grammaticalising expressions being linked via meso-constructions has proved fruitful. Recognising types of grammaticalisation that are enabled by meso-constructions and analogy – as opposed to independent/"pure" grammaticalisation (Lehmann 2004) – moreover helps reconcile frequency-effect approaches with the phenomenon of low-frequency grammaticalisation. The infrequent modifiers *ein Tick* and *eine Idee* seem to owe their existence to an established template, but they also exhibit constraints that cannot be derived solely from a single overarching mid-level schema. Such properties specific to individual micro-constructions or subsets of constructions may be interpreted not just as persistence but as entrenched subschemas or local emergent paradigms. Early paradigmaticisation has been argued to involve emergent paradigms of multiple orders in the sense of constructions at multiple levels of schematicity. Change is guided mainly by associations to micro-constructions and lower-level meso-constructions. Only in advanced stages of grammaticalisation and paradigmaticisation, when microconstructions become sufficiently homogeneous, do higher-level meso-constructions and macro-constructions – which come closest to paradigms in the traditional understanding of the term – act as decisive organisational forces.

Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

## **Data availability**

The annotated raw data are available at https://osf.io/t9j7p/.

## **Acknowledgements**

The authors would like to thank the editors of the present volume as well as the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

## **References**

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

### Jakob Neels & Stefan Hartmann

## **Chapter 10**

## **Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian**

## Anna Kurek-Przybilski

Adam Mickiewicz University Poznań

This paper examines generics as a part of human cognition, rooted in speakers' language knowledge in form of a grammatical paradigm. The paradigm proposed in this paper is based on a broader understanding of the notion, as presented in Diewald (2009) and Diewald & Smirnova (2010) among others. The matrix of the noun forms used in Norwegian in generic contexts is based on the models proposed by Radden & Dirven (2007), Radden (2009) and Pettersson (1976). The models of generics were adjusted to the data from the Norwegian language, collected in this corpus-based study.

## **1 Introduction**

For many years, a *paradigm* was only associated with inflectional paradigms and morphology. However, a discussion on the matter in recent years has resulted in a new view on paradigms, a view that allows for a much broader understanding of the notion and the one that exceeds the branch of morphology.

The core of this paper is based on this new approach to grammatical paradigms which can be applied in examining different language phenomena. In this introductory section, the following questions will be addressed:

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

In scholarly literature, one finds numerous mentions of paradigms, most of them understood as morphological systems. An example of that can be found for instance in Ackerman et al. (2009: 55), where paradigms are presented in a classic understanding of the term, namely as inflectional paradigms.

However, in this paper a different approach will be taken into account. Diewald (2009) and Nørgård-Sørensen et al. (2011) present a new view on paradigms, which will be discussed and utilised in this study.

In her discussion, Diewald (2009: 445) interprets paradigms as a representation of particular construction types. She points out that certain paradigms are obligatory, such as inflectional paradigms, whereas others are not. Genericity falls certainly in the second category – it can be expressed in many different ways and even though certain NP types occur in certain generic contexts, they are not limited to only such contexts.

Such an understanding of the notion allows for a claim that certain language phenomena, such as genericity, can in fact be rooted in speakers' language knowledge and consist of a well-organised system of available forms. One can therefore differentiate between the different forms and the interpretations they imply. Nevertheless, the obligatoriness of such a paradigm remains questionable.

Paradigms understood in a broader sense were also discussed by Nørgård-Sørensen et al. (2011). An example of Danish verbs that can be construed in different ways was provided by Nørgård-Sørensen et al. (2011: 72–73). For instance, the verb *skyde* 'to shoot' can occur with a direct object or with a preposition *på* 'at'. The same mechanism can be observed in the case of generics, especially when it comes to bare nouns (BNs) occurring in generic contexts. In Norwegian (and Swedish, which will be discussed later), where BNs are common, certain verbs can require BNs:

The verb 'to be' in (1) requires a BN because professions, nationalities and religious beliefs are expressed without any article in Norwegian (cf. Swedish as discussed by Pettersson 1976). This can be considered an obligatory paradigm that follows certain grammar rules. In contrast to this, example (2) shows a paradigmatic use of a BN with the verb 'to have'. Here the BN functions as a concept

### 10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

of a dog, not a certain dog or a dog as the whole species. However, it is possible to say *å ha en hund* 'to have a dog', which does not change the meaning of the phrase. The examples illustrates therefore that certain paradigms, including the paradigm of genericity, are optional but nevertheless they structure the language.

Another notion connected to paradigms understood in a broader sense is paradigmaticity. According to Diewald (2009: 447), paradigmaticity is an essential property that distinguishes grammatical items from lexical ones. This view can also be found in Diewald & Smirnova (2010), where paradigmaticity and obligatoriness are perceived as vital elements of the grammaticalisation process, based on the model of Lehmann.

In his seminal work on grammaticalisation, Lehmann presents parameters of grammaticalisation. One of those parameters is paradigmaticity.

What is meant here by paradigmatic cohesion or paradigmaticity is the formal and semantic integration both of a paradigm as a whole and of a single subcategory into the paradigm of its generic category. This requires that the members of the paradigm be linked to each other by clear-cut paradigmatic relations, especially opposition and complementarity. (Lehmann 2015: 141)

The main requirement when it comes to Lehmann's model is the clear-cut relation between the elements of a paradigm. Complementarity or opposition might not seem as clear-cut in case of generics and different noun forms used with generic NPs. However, analysing generics in texts where a broader context was provided, proved that certain noun forms complement each other in some contexts or exclude each other in other contexts.

The theoretical framework used in this paper is based on Diewald (2009), Diewald & Smirnova (2010) and Lehmann (2015). The approaches to grammatical paradigms presented in those studies will be combined with empirical data of Norwegian in order to evaluate the existing paradigms of generics proposed by Radden & Dirven (2007), Radden (2009) and Pettersson (1976). The models will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.

Genericity is a language phenomenon that is present in every language studied to date Behrens (2000, 2005). However, there are no language devices used to express that phenomenon, despite the numerous theories on the matter (Liebesman 2011, Collins 2018). Certain researchers claim that a silent gen-operator exists (Carlson 1977, 1982 and Chierchia 1998 among others), whereas others opt for the so-called "simple view" on generics (Liebesman 2011) that does not take into

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

account any operators and treats generics in the same way as quantified statements. Nevertheless, no empirical studies have shown the presence of a device that would be used solely to express genericity, even though numerous studies on the matter show that the phenomenon may be one of the language universals, present already in children's speech (Gelman & Tardif 1998, Leslie & Gelman 2012 among others).

In different studies concerning generics, the following claims on the paradigmatic nature of the phenomenon are made:

When it comes to the first claim, the fact that generics depend on one's cognition is closely connected to the paradigmatic view on the matter. Being able to interpret and produce generic NPs, sentences and texts means that certain aspects of the phenomenon are automatised – be it on the cognitive level or on the grammatical level.

Another claim is that genericity is a linguistic universal, as is proposed by Leslie (2007). Indeed, numerous studies confirm that children at a very early age are able to correctly interpret and produce generic statements (Gelman & Tardif 1998). This can also imply that generic knowledge is deeply rooted in one's cognition in the form of a paradigm (Leslie et al. 2011).

In the cognitive literature on the matter, one finds numerous studies with different models of genericity. For instance, Leslie et al. (2011) present a model of generic predications and types of references that may be construed with them in English. The model is based on the truth-value of the predications and can be applied when analysing generic sentences.

As has been mentioned, the models of generics that will be utilised in this study and modified according to the data, are those proposed by Radden & Dirven (2007), Radden (2009) and Pettersson (1976). The first two models are based on English where four noun forms can be used to express genericity, namely indefinite singular, indefinite plural, definite singular and definite plural. The noun forms and their generic meanings according to Radden's model are depicted in Table 1.

All types of genericity are illustrated by Radden (2009: 224) as follows:

### 10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

Table 1: Types of generic reference (Table 2 in Radden 2009: 224.)

In the example (3), a member of the kind represents the whole species, indicating that having a bushy tail is a characteristic feature of most lions. Proportional generic is depicted with example (4) and it concerns prototypical members of the kind. Namely, most hedgehogs are shy and therefore the feature can be connected to the whole kind. In example (5) a reference to a kind is expressed with the use of indefinite singular NP. Kind-reference rarely allows for exceptions, therefore one may assume that a great majority of tigers hunts by night. The last category of generic expressions in English, namely delimited generic, is limited to human groups only, as can be seen in example (6). The definite plural generic in English cannot be used with other nouns, whereas in Norwegian this NP type occurs in many more generic contexts as will be discussed later in this paper.

A graphic representation of English generics is presented in Figure 1.

The generic noun forms, both definite and indefinite, singular and plural, have certain functions and interpretations assigned to them. For instance, indefinite singular is used when referring to a single member of a given group in order to state a generalisation about the whole species. A similar use is assigned to definite singular which is used mostly as a kind-reference. The two plural forms – indefinite and definite – also have their typical uses according to the proposed paradigm. Indefinite plurals are used when a certain proportion of members in

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

Figure 1: Types of generic reference (Table 5.4 in Radden & Dirven 2007: 111).

a group (the majority) share a given feature, whereas the definite plural form is used only when talking about groups of people.

Both models proposed by Radden & Dirven (2007) and Radden (2009) are constructed according to the restrictions mentioned by Lehmann (2015). Namely, the functions of generic forms are complementary and/or opposite to each other. This results also in relatively low interchangeability of the forms. For instance, delimited generics used solely when talking about people in English cannot be utilised as kind generic, and so on.

In both models, bare nouns are not taken into consideration as they are not very common in generic contexts in English. The only situation when BNs are used generically is with mass nouns. However, generic use of this noun type in Norwegian (and Swedish as will be presented) is a lot more frequent.

Let us now consider the paradigm of Swedish generics proposed by Pettersson (1976) in Figure 2, 1 where BNs occur as one of the available generic forms.

The author proposes a number of possible readings of noun forms that can occur with generics. Such references are divided according to the features "limited +/−" and "specific +/−", according to which non-generic nouns are always specific (Pettersson 1976: 121).

Pettersson provides also a number of examples that illustrate generics presented in his model:

1My translation into English. For the original graph in Swedish the reader is referred to the mentioned paper (Pettersson 1976: 121).

10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

Figure 2: Reference types in Swedish according to Pettersson (1976: 121)

All of the sentences above are generic, even though they include two NP types – singular indefinite and singular definite. The examples in (8) and (10) illustrate representative generic, where a single instance represents the kind, namely 'a dog' and 'a boy' have some features that can be assigned to the whole group (most/all dogs chase cats and none/almost none boys cry).

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

The examples (9), (10) and (11), where definite singular NPs are used, can be seen as *classic* kind references, where a prototypical instance represents the whole kind. One can assume that the prototypical wren shares a certain behaviour of all wrens, just as the prototypical dog does and the prototypical politician supporting the Social Democratic Party.

What is more, Pettersson's model allows for a bare form in non-specific contexts. Generic references are indeed considered non-specific, as they are generalisations, not references to particular instances of a given kind (cf. Lyons 1977).

The examples of a non-specific use of bare nouns can be seen in the sentences below (Pettersson 1976: 127):

Professions, nationalities and religious functions are used without articles in Swedish (as well as in Norwegian). The reason for this, as Pettersson explains, is that they describe general concepts. A similar statement can be said about bare generics in Norwegian, as in example (14).

(14) Ola Ola vil will kjøpe buy hus. house 'Ola will buy a house.'

The NP 'house' is rather a concept than a particular house that Ola wants to purchase. The conceptual BNs in Norwegian are neither singular nor plural – they are neutral when it comes to number, as well as definiteness (cf. Halmøy 2016). They can also be used in generic contexts as will be shown later in the paper.

For the purpose of this study, all of the models presented above will be used to identify different types of generics in order to create a paradigm of the phenomenon in Norwegian. The following section focuses on the material used for the study, in Sections 3 and 4 the results of the analysis will be presented, whereas Section 5 concerns implications for further research in the field.

10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

## **2 Material**

The study presented in this paper is based on a tailor-made corpus of generic texts. 170 texts (27 761 tokens in total) were retrieved from an online encyclopaedia *Store norske leksikon*. The encyclopaedia contains texts written both in *bokmål* and *nynorsk*, the two written standards of Norwegian. In this study, only texts written in *bokmål* are analysed.2

There were many reasons for the choice of encyclopaedic texts. First of all, generic NPs and sentences are not annotated in any of the available corpora of Norwegian so the phenomenon would have to be tagged manually anyway. Second of all, tagging genericity manually means that the texts chosen for the analysis must contain relatively many references of this sort in order for the material to be sufficient. This might not be the case should newspaper articles or literary texts be analysed, where the number of generic references is relatively low.

Finally, genericity is a context dependent phenomenon and it can occur both at the NP level, sentence level and text level (Behrens 2005). Therefore, choosing the texts that are primarily generic makes the analysis possible, also when it comes to the available resources.

The texts chosen for the study are at least one paragraph long and contain at least one generic reference. The texts are divided into five thematic categories:

Below follow the example generic sentences from each of the categories:

(15) Vitnet witness-def skal shall som as utgangspunkt rule gi give forklaringen explanation-def umiddelbart immediately for for den the dømmende sentencing rett. court

'A witness shall, as a rule, provide an explanation immediately to the sentencing court.'

2The reason for such a choice is that the *bokmål* language variant is used by the majority of the population (87.7% according to a study published by Gunnerud 2017).

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

The category 'people' contains 20 texts, the categories 'animals', 'plants' and 'tools' contain 25 texts each, whereas the category 'other' consists of 75 texts. Differences in the number of texts in some of the categories is due to a few reasons. When it comes to the category 'people', finding a description of an ethnic group, a nationality or an official function that is written in *bokmål* and has the length of at least one paragraph, is a challenge. However, the difference of 5 texts in relation to the categories 'animals', 'plants' and 'tools' is not significant in terms of the results.

The category 'other' is the biggest of the whole corpus and it contains most diverse NP types. There are countable nouns and mass nouns, descriptions of objects, abstract notions, professions3 , elements of the landscape and many others. Since the category contains so many different nouns that do not fit to any of the other categories, it also consists of many more texts. This way numerous generic contexts are taken into account without the need to divide the corpus into many separate subcategories.

The choice of source texts for the analysis is subjective and its main purpose is to investigate the use of noun forms with different types of nouns – animate, inanimate, countable and mass, as well as those recognised as well-established kinds (WEKs) and familiar nouns (c.f. Carlson & Pelletier 1995 and Borthen 2007 among others).

The example sentences with each of those NP types can be found below ((20) – animate, (21) – inanimate and countable, (22) – mass noun and (23) – WEK):

3Descriptions of professions are recognised as different from descriptions of groups of people. Professions are perceived more as concepts or a type of job, not people who perform a given task. Therefore the NPs of this sort are classified in the category 'other' and not 'people'. Official functions however, such as 'king', 'priest' etc. are classified in the category 'people'.

10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

'Ink consisted originally of soot or dyes from minerals, plants and animals.'

(23) Stavkirke stave.church-∅ er is en a høyt highly utviklet developed kirketype,. church.type 'A stave church is a highly developed church type.'

All texts in the corpus were tagged manually for genericity and noun forms of the NPs in question. The material was annotated and analysed with the use of R software (version 3.6.1). A random sample of annotated texts was proofread by a native speaker of Norwegian in order to eliminate potential mistakes or misinterpretations of generic references. However, due to the fact that all texts in the corpus are generic, annotating genericity was a fairly simple task and no mistakes were found in the randomly generated sample.

## **3 General results**

In the Norwegian nominal system, one finds five NP types, namely: BN (*hund* 'dog'), indefinite singular (*en hund* 'a dog') and plural (*hunder* 'dogs'), as well as definite singular (*hunden* 'the dog') and plural (*hundene* 'the dogs'). Among the five NP types, BNs seem to have the least stable status. In recent years, it has been discussed whether BNs are marked for number and definiteness. According to one view, they can be considered indefinite and singular (Borthen 2003), whereas others claim that BNs are neutral in terms of definiteness and number (cf. Halmøy 2016). As will be presented in this section, the second view seems to be more plausible. BNs are not considered singular or plural, neither are they considered (in)definite.

All nouns tagged as generic were counted and summed up in Table 2.

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

Table 2: Generic noun forms in the corpus – general results

As can be seen, the three most frequently occurring noun forms include bare nouns, indefinite plural and definite singular. The two other forms, namely indefinite singular and definite plural, were used less frequently.

The main tendencies for the use of different noun forms already show that certain of them are used in many more contexts than other ones. For instance, BNs were used in numerous examples throughout all corpus texts, both as first mentions and as subsequent mentions. What is worth pointing out is that first mentions in many of the corpus texts were both encyclopaedic entries and subjects of the first sentences. This may be one of the reasons for such a frequent use of BNs. However, in many of the texts BNs appeared also as subsequent mentions, following often other noun forms used earlier in the text.

The second most often used noun form was indefinite plural, seen often as *default* when it comes to expressing genericity in Germanic languages (cf. Carlson 1977, Carlson & Pelletier 1995, Chierchia 1998, Pettersson 1976 among others). The collected data proves that this claim holds also for Norwegian (see Section 3.4).

Another aspect that was also observed in the corpus, was the position of generic NPs in the corpus texts. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Generic noun forms – position in a sentence

The position of generic nouns in the corpus did not influence the choice of different noun forms, as there were almost as many initial NPs as there were non-initial ones.

### 10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

What is more, the functions of the generic NPs were annotated. This way it was possible to see the grammatical roles the nouns had and whether there were some main tendencies. Indeed, as can be seen in Table 4, in the majority of generic sentences, the NPs in question occurred as subjects. Many generic sentences given as examples of genericity in the scholarly literature have a similar structure – generic nouns are much more often subjects than objects. This tendency was observed also in the corpus. Other grammatical functions, such as genitive modifiers, were much less frequent.

Table 4: Generic noun forms – function in a sentence

In this paper, questions concerning NP's position and function in generic sentences will not be considered. They are not central to the issue of paradigms and, as has been argued above, they do not seem to influence the use of different noun forms in generic texts. In the following subsections, all five noun forms will be discussed with reference to genericity in Norwegian.

## **3.1 Bare nouns**

Bare nouns used generically with countable nouns were frequent in the corpus and their use was often conceptual, as can be seen in example (24).

(24) I In middelalderen Middle.Ages var was det there badstue sauna-∅ i in alle all byer. cities 'In the Middle Ages there were saunas in all cities'.

Some researchers consider BNs to be marked for number and closely connected to singular nouns (see e.g. Borthen 2003), whereas others claim that the noun form is neutral in terms of number and definiteness (Halmøy 2016).

As has been mentioned before, the second interpretation is utilised in this study. BNs, such as *badstue* in the example above, cannot be interpreted as a specific sauna, rather a concept of it. Similarly as in example (14) mentioned

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

before, most of the BNs from the corpus represent a concept and are therefore neutral when it comes to number and definiteness.

The noun 'sauna' in (24) does not refer to any particular sauna but rather to the concept of it. The BN used in the example is not marked for number or definiteness and it is therefore difficult to match that use to any of the generic categories from the models of Radden & Dirven (2007) and Radden (2009). However, the graph proposed by Pettersson (1976) accounts for such a context, depicting it as a non-specific, non-limited generic.

Another conceptual use of BN can be observed in example (25), where a profession is described with the use of this noun form.

(25) Psykolog psychologist er is en a person person med with utdanning education i in psykologi. psychology 'A psychologist is a person with education in psychology.'

In English, a similar example can be rendered with indefinite singular to suggest that any given psychologist needs to have education in the field in order to perform the profession. In Norwegian however, the reference is expressed with a bare noun, making the profession more of a concept than an actual person working in the field.

The bare noun form, most widely used throughout all corpus texts, appeared also in sentences with WEKs and familiar nouns, namely nouns that are recognised as well-known in a given language and/or culture, as can be observed in example (26).

(26) Stavkirke stave.church er is en a høyt highly utviklet develop.pst kirketype church.type (...). 'A stave church is a highly developed type of church (...).'

Again, the reference to a stave church is conceptual as the BN used in the sentence above does not suggest number or definiteness. What is more, familiar nouns are often used as BNs and/or definite nouns, which suggests that they function in a way as proper names (cf. Carlson & Pelletier 1995).

## **3.2 Indefinite singular**

Indefinite singulars were very rarely used in the corpus and in the two of the categories, namely 'animals' and 'plants' there were no instances of indefinite singulars. Indefinite singular, according to Radden (2009), is a representative

### 10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

generic type, used when an instance represents its type. Such use is prototypical in the sense that one element of the group or one member of the whole kind is referred to in order to denote the whole group/kind. An example of such a use of indefinite singular can be found in (27).

(27) En A plateskrue flat-head.screw er is spiss sharp og and laget make-part av of herdet tempered stål. steel 'Flat-head screws are sharp and made of tempered steel.'

In the sentence about a plate screw, a characteristic feature of that object is described, making a generic reference possible. The essential attribute (Radden & Dirven 2007: 111) of an arbitrary instance (Radden 2009: 224) makes the reference prototypical.

Kind reference can also be expressed with indefinite singular, similarly as in the models presented in the previous section. However, such kind reference is also prototypical as it utilises a single referent in order to denote a whole kind. The features of a single member of a kind are then projected over the whole group.

## **3.3 Definite singular**

Definite singular is regarded by Radden (2009) as typical kind generic. Pettersson (1976) however treats definite singular generic as prototypical, similarly to indefinite singulars mentioned above.

In example (28), 'the ballpoint pen' serves as a prototype for all pens of this sort. It was not a single pen that was invented at that time but rather the whole kind.

(28) Kulepennen Ballpoint.pen-def ble was oppfunnet invented på in 1800-tallet. 19th.century 'The ballpoint pen was invented in the 19th century.'

Definite singulars were among the three most used noun forms in the corpus. They occurred as kind references as in the example above, but also with mass nouns, familiar nouns and WEKs. As has been already mentioned, the definite forms, both singular and plural, are often used with well-established kinds, as can be seen in example (29).

(29) Hunden dog-def var was det the første first husdyret domestic.animal vårt. ours 'The dog was our first domestic animal.'

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

What one interprets as a familiar noun or a well-established kind, depends greatly on one's language intuition and the context in which the noun appears. However, certain nouns, such as 'the dog' in the example above, are widely used in everyday speech and are therefore recognised as familiar.

The interpretation of certain NPs as WEKs or familiar nouns does not influence the results presented in this study. The generic contexts are clear and analysing certain NPs as familiar or well-established enriches the analysis with additional contexts.

## **3.4 Indefinite plural**

Indefinite plurals are considered *default* generic noun forms in many Germanic languages. In the corpus, this noun form occurred very frequently, indicating clear-cut kind reference, as in examples (30) and (31) below.

According to Radden (2009: 224), indefinite plural indicates *a salient proportion of the type's reference mass*. In other words, when making a kind reference with this noun form, the speaker refers to the majority of the kind and generalises over the whole kind this way. Radden & Dirven (2007: 111) mention also a *characteristic attribute* that allows to make such generalisations. The attribute however, does not need to be applicable to 100% of the population to be valid. Such generic usage is also mentioned by Leslie et al. (2011) and is called for 'majority characteristic'. This type of generic expressions consists of a salient feature that allows for exceptions.

The exceptions for the examples above can be dogs without any fur or skates that may not be considered good edible fish by certain people. Nevertheless, a hairless dog or inedible skates would still be classified as members of their respective kinds, despite the lack of a certain feature.

It is nevertheless questionable whether such nouns, while referring to a certain proportion of the class, can occur as BNs in contexts that allow for exceptions. BNs, as has been discussed before, often express concepts, not particular entities that one can generalise about.

10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

## **3.5 Definite plural**

The last of the noun forms and generic types mentioned in the models, are definite plurals. Definite plural generic in English is considered as delimited generic, since its use is rather limited. In Norwegian, many more generic contexts are possible. One of the contexts is the same as in English, namely it concerns groups of people.

Surprisingly enough, kind reference can also be rendered with definite plural, as can be seen in examples (32) and (33).

The sentences about bats and bumblebees are *classic* generic sentences, where a truth about a given kind is stated. The interpretation is very similar as in case of indefinite plural generic, and is translated this way into English.

Definite plural generic is nevertheless not an equivalent of indefinite plural and the kind reference expressed this way differs in interpretation. In the corpus, not all animal species were described with definite plurals. In the majority of the cases, the form was used in descriptions of small animals and animal species considered gregarious, as in the case of bumblebees.

Another uses of delimited generic included WEKs, as well as quasi-mass nouns. Quasi-mass nouns are nouns that are grammatically countable but can be perceived as mass. The example in (34) shows this phenomenon.

(34) Torvmosene peat.moss-pl.def har have en a eiendommelig homogeneous bygning. structure 'Peat moss has a homogeneous structure.'

In Norwegian, the NP 'peat moss' is grammatically countable but, as can be seen in the example above, is often regarded as a mass. Another explanation for the use of definite plural generic in this case is the fact that moss consists of many smaller elements and therefore gives an impression that there are many different plants seen as a whole.

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

## **4 Discussion**

All of the noun forms and their generic uses discussed in the previous sections, are based solely on the corpus material. The list of available generic contexts for each of the forms is not exhaustive but it allows to see main tendencies when it comes to genericity in Norwegian. In this section, a model of Norwegian generics will be presented in the form of a paradigm, based on those tendencies.

Table 5 comprises generic contexts that were frequent in the corpus texts. The cells marked with "+" indicate that the feature was present, whereas those marked with "−" lack a given feature. Asterisks in certain cells indicate modifications of the contexts in question. The cells marked with asterisk in case of kind reference indicate a conceptual or prototypical reference discussed in the previous sections. Mass nouns expressed with definite plural and equally marked with asterisk refer to quasi-mass readings, such as 'the peat moss' in example (34).

Table 5: Paradigm of Norwegian generics

The presented paradigm of Norwegian generics differs from a feature matrix in that it comprises different NP types, as well as contexts in which they occur. For instance, if we take a look at BNs we see that this NP type is not only used with numerous types of nouns (countable, mass, WEK etc.) but it also expresses kind reference, can be used to describe groups of people or to express concepts. The semantic basis for this paradigm is therefore a generic interpretation of a given NP type together with the context in which such an interpretation occurs.

As can be observed, bare nouns were used in most diverse contexts throughout the corpus texts. Almost all of the aspects mentioned, except for prototypes and gregarious animal species, were rendered with this noun form in at least one of

### 10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

the texts. Concepts were expressed only with BNs, accounting for the opposition between concepts and prototypes.

The three noun forms that express kind reference through prototypes, namely BN, indefinite singular and definite singular, are complementary with each other but stand in contrast to a *classic* kind reference rendered with indefinite plural.

Another interesting aspect of the proposed model are countable nouns. In the Norwegian data, in generic contexts, countable nouns are used with all noun forms. Such an abundance of possible noun forms does not mean that the forms are interchangeable in all possible contexts. For instance, when a kind reference is usually rendered with indefinite plural, but in certain contexts, other noun forms can also have such a reading.

One of the biggest changes with reference to the original models of Radden & Dirven (2007) and Radden (2009), are the contexts available for definite plural generics. Unlike English, in Norwegian a few other uses were found in the corpus, such as quasi-mass plants or references to gregarious animal species. Definite plural generic is still limited in Norwegian but to a lesser degree than it is the case in English.

The contexts in Table 5 are the most frequent ones. For instance, in certain examples sub-kinds and hyperonyms were accessed through definite plural generics but those reference types were not in the majority and are therefore lacking in the model.

Understanding genericity as a paradigm rooted in speakers' language knowledge and intuition implies that certain noun forms are grammaticalised in generic contexts and to a certain degree. For instance, a *default* kind reference is always rendered with indefinite plural, although a few other noun forms could take on such reading. The diversity of the available generic forms in Norwegian is still greater than it is in English generics but the observed tendencies prove that a paradigm of generic noun forms exists.

## **5 Implications for further research**

The study presented in this paper concerns one written standard of Norwegian and generic use of different noun forms in encyclopaedic texts. A possible extension of the analysis could include the other written standard of the language, namely *nynorsk*. What is more, different text genres could be considered in examination of generics, should the resources allow for such a wide analysis.

Another aspect that was out of the scope of this study was the possible influence of dialects on the written standard. The Norwegian dialects are rather

### Anna Kurek-Przybilski

difficult to study, especially when it comes to such subtle phenomena as genericity. One of the reasons for this is the diversity of all dialects, as well as the diversity within the main dialect groups. Finally, dialects are mostly restricted to the spoken medium and therefore a study on genericity in Norwegian dialects would have to be based on discourse analysis or interviews.

As has been shown in this paper, genericity is a complex phenomenon that is considered by some researchers as one of the language universals. A paradigmatic view on the matter may help to further develop the matrix of generics that would be applicable for all aspects of the language, both written and spoken.

Last but not least, the presented paradigm could be considered when analysing the process of grammaticalisation in Norwegian. Currently, the different noun forms that occur in generic contexts show a relatively low degree of grammaticalisation, compared for instance to Romance languages, where genericity is almost always definite (cf. Kabatek 2013). It is possible that as the grammaticalisation of articles proceeds, also genericity will also be grammaticalised to a certain degree.

## **Acknowledgements**

This work was supported by the National Science Center under grant number 2017/25/N/HS2/00003.

## **References**

10 Generics as a paradigm: A corpus-based study of Norwegian

## **Chapter 11**

## **The importance of paradigmatic analyses: From one lexical input into multiple grammatical paradigms**

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

University of Copenhagen

I take as my starting point that when lexical entities grammaticalize, they enter preexisting paradigms. Therefore, grammatical paradigms are important for the understanding of the reanalyses leading to grammaticalization. In the line of Henning Andersen's thinking I propose to conceive of grammar as composed of sets of paradigms (Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011). The term *paradigm* is used not in the narrow sense of inflectional paradigm, nor entirely in the line of the "classical" grammaticalization approach of Lehmann (1985), but in the more general sense of a selectional set, composed of marked or unmarked members (Andersen 2008: 19). The lexical input that I use to illustrate my point is the French verb *voir* 'to see', in order to show the pathway of a multifunctional lexical item into grammar, i.e. into a number of individual paradigms.

My approach combines synchronic and diachronic investigations on electronic corpora. Each paradigm presents the actual synchronic status of diachronic grammaticalization processes. By distinguishing the different contexts (labelled domains) in which the given forms appear, and state which semantic fields they cover (labelled frames), I can generate synchronic paradigms of which the grammatical entities are members. I aim to demonstrate that synchronic paradigms provide a precise and relatively simple presentation of what otherwise would seem utterly diverse usages of a lexical entity.

Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh. 2022. The importance of paradigmatic analyses: From one lexical input into multiple grammatical paradigms. In Gabriele Diewald & Katja Politt (eds.), *Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm*, 319–342. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo. 5675859

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## **1 Introduction**

I 1 take as my starting point that when lexical entities grammaticalize, they enter pre-existing or new grammatical paradigms. Therefore, paradigms are important for the understanding of the reanalyses leading to grammaticalization.

In the line of Henning Andersen's thinking I propose to conceive of grammar as composed of sets of paradigms (Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011). I here use the term *paradigm* not in the narrow sense of inflectional paradigm, nor entirely in the line of the "classical" grammaticalization approach of Lehmann (1985), but in the more general sense of a selectional set, composed of marked and unmarked members (Andersen 2008: 19). In previous studies (Kragh & Schøsler 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2021) I have shown that the notion of a paradigm is useful for the understanding of grammatical structure.

In order to show the pathway of a lexical item into grammar, i.e. into a number of different paradigms, I will use the lexical French verb *voir* 'to see' and the derived phrases, *voici* and *voilà* to illustrate my point. When aiming at analysing a polysemous and multifunctional lexical entity like this verb, the researcher can choose between a polysemic or a monosemic approach, see Waltereit (2002, 2006). But when studying how a lexical item grammaticalizes, I do not consider this discussion to be the essential one. Rather, I think that the most interesting point is how the lexical item enters different grammatical paradigms.

My approach combines synchronic and diachronic investigations on electronic corpora. Each paradigm shown in the following presents the synchronic results of diachronic grammaticalization processes, based on synchronic paradigmatic analyses of very different functions. The paradigms comprise the following grammatical categories: verbal categories: tense, aspect and mood, i.e. progression (*je le vois qui arrive* 'I see him arriving'), voice (*il se voit refuser l'accès* 'he is refused entrance'), pragmatic categories: presentatives (*voilà le bateau* 'here is the boat'), focus constructions (*voici le bateau qui arrive* 'here is the boat arriving'), and discourse markers (*le bateau arrive, tu vois* 'the boat is arriving, in fact'), and the category of particles, i.e. the preposition *vu* 'considering' and the subordinate conjunction *vu que* 'considering that'. I shall illustrate my paradigmatic approach by means of three cases: the progressive paradigm, the presentative paradigm, and the focalization paradigm. I aim to show that the progressive and the presentative paradigms are preconditions for *voir*'s entrance in the focalization paradigm. By distinguishing the different contexts (labelled *syntactic domains*) in which the

1An extensive part of this work has been done in collaboration with Lene Schøsler. I am deeply grateful for her valuable suggestions and comments on this article.

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

forms appear, and state which semantic fields they cover (labelled *frames*), I identify synchronic paradigms of which the above exemplified grammatical entities are members. I claim that synchronic paradigms provide a precise and relatively simple presentation of what otherwise would seem utterly diverse usages of a lexical entity.2

## **2 Definition of paradigmatic level**

The grammatical paradigm can be identified through a set of five defining features (Nørgård-Sørensen et al. 2011: 5–6).3

First, the grammatical paradigm is a *closed set of items*, the number of members being fixed at a given language stage.4 In Modern French, for instance, the category of tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) comprises the simple verb forms present, past, future tenses: *voit*, *vit*/*voyait*, *verra/verrait*, and a number of analytical forms.

Secondly, for every paradigm, the *syntactic domain*, i.e. the syntagmatic context in which it applies must be specified. Thus, in Modern French, the domain of the category TAM is the simple or composed finite verb form of a given sentence.

Thirdly, a paradigm has a *semantic frame*, i.e. a common semantic denominator, here tense, aspect and mood, within which the content of its members is defined in opposition to one another. Semantic frames are language specific and cannot be taken to be equivalent to the cognitive networks of Croft (2001) and Croft & Cruse (2004).

Fourthly, the choice between the members is *obligatory*, in the sense that in the given syntagmatic context that defines the domain of the paradigm, speakers cannot avoid selecting one of the members; they must choose for example one verbal form – simple or analytical, the present, the past, the future, etc. – to express the temporal and aspectual dimension of a given utterance.

Fifthly, a paradigm is *asymmetric*, distinguishing between marked and unmarked members, possibly in a hierarchical structure. In Modern French, the

2An alternative way of presenting a selection of diverse usages is the lexical approach provided in dictionaries. Please, see https://robert-correcteur.lerobert.com for an illustration of a rather unsystematic presentation with a mix of lexical and grammatical information on the different functions of *voir* in the digital dictionary Robert Connecteur.

3This section is a revised version of section 2.1 in Kragh & Schøsler (2015).

4 In fact, over time most paradigms change their member list, so a *given language stage* is an abstract notion to be defined for each paradigm at a specifically defined synchrony. Since languages are always changing, it is not an easy task to identify the relevant synchronic stages permitting the establishment of a paradigm, without the risk of circular argumentation.

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

present tense is the unmarked form, because it appears in both perfective and imperfective contexts and displays such values as present, habitual, progressive, recent past, near future, etc. Compared to the present tense, the simple past, the imperfect, the future, and the conditional are all marked, i.e. restricted, both in regard to the type of context in which they appear, and in regard to their temporal and aspectual values.

Whereas *the domain* refers to the syntagmatic delimitation of the paradigm on the expression level, *the frame* is its counterpart on the content level. A paradigm is not a pure expression system, but a sign system with the domain-and-frame pair constituting a unity of expression and content (according to the terminology of the Danish Functional tradition, see Engberg-Pedersen et al. 1996).

## **3 Lexical level: Level 0**

Before studying the processes of grammaticalization, we must start at the lexical level, i.e. the valency level with its possible constituents in free use. It is crucial here to distinguish the lexical level from the construction level; it is the former that provides the input to a grammaticalization process.

*Voir* is a highly polysemous verb, characterized by its frequency in usage. Such high frequency verbs are likely to grammaticalize or pragmaticalize (cf. Bolly 2010: 674–675).

This makes *voir* an obvious choice as object in an attempt to demonstrate how one single lexical item tends to enter a number of new constructions, thus becoming member of a wide range of grammatical paradigms. Each new usage of *voir* being routinized is a candidate for entering a new paradigm. Craig (1991) introduces the term *polygrammaticalization* to refer to this phenomenon where one particular lexical entity is the source of multiple grammaticalization chains.

As I see it, the function of a given lexical item in a given context triggers the specific meaning of this lexical item. Thus, when *voir* is used in new contexts, it is ascribed new functions (e.g. presentation, focus, progression, passive voice, discourse marker, etc.); they provide new meanings. I have shown in previous studies that secondary features of the original construction turn into primary features during the process of grammaticalization (cf. for instance Kragh & Schøsler 2015). In what follows, I will first present the lexical level (level 0), and subsequently a number of paradigms into which forms of the verb *voir* have entered as a result of the grammaticalizations.

As indicated in Figure 1, level 0 is lexical, it comprises the valency-bound constituents that combine with the verb *voir*, e.g. noun phrases (1), possibly with

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

Figure 1: Lexical level (level 0)

a subordinate relative clause (2), complement clauses (3); a number of nexus constructions,5 with infinitive (4), with deictic relative clause (5), with present or perfect participles, (6) and (7), with adjectives (8), with nouns (9), or with a prepositional phrase as object complement, (10) and (11):

5The term *nexus* describes the relation of interdependency with the antecedent/referent in contrast e.g. to subordinate relative clauses. This implies that the antecedent/referent cannot be omitted, e.g. \**Je vois perdu*/*président* etc.

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

No other verb of visual perception has such a large number of possible constituents (Willems & Defrancq 2000: 10).

We now proceed from the lexical level to the levels of grammatical paradigms.

## **4 Paradigms: Levels 1 to 3**

## **4.1 Level 1: Reanalysis of the subordinate relative clause into the deictic relative clause**

Levels 1 and 2 and later on also level 3 illustrate the use of *voir* in contexts where the original meaning of the verb *voir* is bleached due to a number of reanalyses and grammaticalizations.

Level 1 comprises the initial reanalysis and grammaticalization that are a prerequisite of the grammaticalizations at level 2 and 3.

At level 1 I find the grammaticalization of the deictic relative clause due to a reanalysis of the relative subordinate (see Kragh & Schøsler 2014, 2015), i.e. reanalysis of level 0. This is an important step for the subsequent grammaticalizations that involve *voir* in a progressive context (level 2).

Figure 2: From lexical level to grammatical level

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

In example (2), we had a clear subordinate relative clause which was part of the NP. In certain contexts, such subordinate clauses are reanalysed. I have found bridging examples in which the hearer may interpret the message of the relative clause in two different ways, see example (12):

(12) S'i erent venu apoier;/quant le cuens vit son escuier/qui sor le noir destrier estoit 'they have come to rest there/when the count saw his horseman/who was sitting on the black horse' (Les romans de Chrétien de Troyes, Erec et Enide, ca. 1213, p. 98, vers 3207–3210, Frantext)

The interpretation of this example is twofold. The point may be that the count firstly catches sight of his horseman and subsequently discovers him sitting on the black horse. However, another interpretation is also possible, providing a bridging or critical context, which permits reanalysis because of the ambiguity (see Diewald 2002: 117, Heine 2002), namely a holistic (progressive) perception of the horseman sitting on the horse.

I will consider the second interpretation of example (12) to be the result of the speaker reanalysing the subordinate type of relative clause, in the following way: A (subordinate relative clause specifying an NP) > B (deictic relative construction), i.e. into a new type of verbal complementation, without immediate change of the surface manifestation. This implies that the construction has acquired not only a) a different function, which is not a subordinate, but a nexus relation, but also b) a different meaning. This meaning has been described tentatively in terms of a holistic vision. Moreover, this vision is progressive, by which term I refer to an ongoing process performed by the referent of the direct object of the verb of perception.6

### **4.1.1 From level 1 to level 2, paradigm 1**

As the deictic relative construction (B) is accepted in the speech community and increases its use, it is *embedded,* i.e. integrated into grammar (Herzog et al., 1968: 185). Once embedded, it can be considered as yet another way of expressing progressivity: (*Je vois*) *Pierre qui chante*, 'I see Peter singing', cf. Figure 3.

Paradigm 1 shows the inventory of the progressive constructions in French in form of a paradigm. Please note that this paradigm has a diachronic dimension.

6 For a more detailed description of the origin of the deictic relative, I refer to Kragh & Schøsler (2014: 178–182).

Figure 3: From level 0 to paradigm 1

From the early times until the end of the 17th century, *Pierre va chantant* is the unmarked form, also diatopically. *Pierre est à chanter* and *Pierre est après chanter* are diatopically and diastratically marked, whereas *Pierre est en train de chanter* turns into the unmarked form of progression from the 19th century. The type *Je vois Pierre qui chante* is a marked member of the paradigm from the 17th century: They all mean 'Peter is singing'. It is the only member that provides a holistic perception of the activity, perceived in its progression, and which has a different referent for the subjects of the two verbs (S1 ≠ S2).

## **4.1.2 From level 1 to level 2, Paradigm 2**

Let us now consider another paradigm, that of the fossilized imperative form of *voir, voici*/*voilà*, reanalyzed as member of the presentation paradigm.

French has a number of ways of expressing presentation: *c'est X*, *il y a X*, *il est X*, *voici/voilà X*, *X* being the presented entity. These constructions have been examined in Kragh & Schøsler (2019), where the inventory of presentation is discussed and a list has been established in accordance with Lambrecht (2000, 2001) and Riegel et al. (2009 [1994]):

*C'est X:*

(13) Ce n'est pas eux 'It's not them'

Table 1: Progressivity in French, progressive constructions (Kragh & Schøsler, 2015: 290)

### *a*→1700

*b* 1800→

## *Il y a X:*

(14) Il y a quelqu'un 'There is someone'

## *Il est X:*

(15) Il était une fois une belle princesse 'Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess'

## *Voici/voilà:*

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

These presentatives can be listed in a paradigm (see Paradigm 2). In the following, I will focus on the presentatives *voici* and *voilà*, derived from the verb *voir*.

In this construction, *Voici*/*Voilà X* presents a referent *X*, known or unknown to the hearer, examples (16) and (17). This kind of constructions is also called *neutral focus structures*. *X* can be an NP, (16) and (17), possibly with a subordinate relative clause (18), a complement clause (19), or an interrogative clause (20).

It is characteristic for such constructions that they address explicitly the hearer and thus have the feature of +deixis, since they presuppose the presence of the hearer in the factual or fictive conversation space. In Modern French, *Voilà X* is more frequent than *Voici X*, and the latter is marked, since it has reduced possibilities of usage. The constructions are especially frequent in oral, informal communication, in accordance with the deictic character of the forms.

I consider the presentative construction exemplified in (16) to (20) a reanalysis of the lexical usage of the verb *voir*, level 0. This reanalysis is illustrated by a bridging example (21) in which the hearer may interpret the message of the utterance in two different ways. Example (21) is from Chanson de Roland, 1100 (cited in Oppermann-Marsaux 2006: 79):

(21) Dreiz emperere, veiz me ci en present 'Rightful Emperor, see me present here' (interpretation 1) 'Rightful Emperor, here I am before you' (interpretation 2)

According to interpretation 1, the speaker addresses the Emperor by saying 'see me being present here'; thus, *veiz* expresses visual perception. However, another interpretation is also possible, interpretation 2, which is a way of attracting the attention of the emperor. Thus, example (21) provides a bridging or critical context which permits reanalysis because of the ambiguity (cf. Diewald 2002, Heine 2002), namely an intention of attracting attention, i.e. a purely pragmatic function. I will consider the second interpretation to be the result of the speaker reanalysing the imperative form of *voir* followed by the particle *ci*, in the following way: A (imperative form of the verb of perception *voir* followed by a locative particle *ci*, meaning 'see here') > B (presentative), i.e. into a new way of attracting attention to a given item, without immediate change of the surface manifestation. This implies that the construction has acquired not only a) a different function. Thus, it is no longer a finite verb + a particle, but it is reanalysed as a fixed form with a particle, with b) a different meaning, i.e. presentation or attracting attention. Consequently, the new function is pragmatic.

This process of reanalysis and grammaticalization of the imperative verbal form in the second person singular and merge with the two adverbs *-ci* and *-là*,

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

losing its full lexical meaning, is schematized in Figure 4. I refer to Kragh & Strudsholm (2013: 212–216) and Kragh & Schøsler (2014: 190–191) for a detailed account of the reanalysis from level 0 to level 1 and to Oppermann-Marsaux (2006) for an account of the initial steps of this process. In the course of the subsequent reanalysis from level 1 to level 2, *voici*/*voilà X* is reanalysed as a member of the presentative paradigm (Figure 4)

Figure 4: From level 0 to paradigm 2

The presentative paradigm is listed in paradigm 2 and contains the constructions exemplified above in (13) to (20).

The syntactic domain, i.e. the syntagmatic context, for the presentative paradigm (S)VX is a verb with or without a subject, followed by X as the presented entity. The semantic frame is *presentation*, in the sense of an introduction of important and new information to the hearer about a new or already known entity. With respect to the content, the members of the paradigm are, in addition to *presentation*, characterized by two features, namely the option of identification/opposition and deixis. *Identification* refers to the designation of a referent, possibly combined with the designation in opposition to one of more other potential referents (*opposition*). The feature of *deixis* refers to the possibility of addressing explicitly a hearer and it presupposes the presence of the hearer in the factual or the fictive conversation room.

Having the least restrictions of the four members of the paradigm, *c'est X* is the unmarked member (Kragh & Schøsler 2019). In addition to presentation, *c'est X* is characterized by its capacity of identifying, possibly with specification of opposition. Deixis is possible. *Il y a* can only mean presentation, not identification,

Table 2: Presentative paradigm. m: marked member of paradigm; u : unmarked member of paradigm

*a* Fossilized variant of *il y a*.

and deixis is not required. *Il est* is the fossilized variant of the productive *il y a*; it has the same content as *il y a*, but is mainly used in introductions of fairy tales or to express time. *Voici*/*voilà* expresses presentation, not identification, but does, on the other hand, express deixis. The three latter are thus marked in proportion to *c'est X*.

### **4.1.3 From level 2 to level 3, Paradigm 3**

Members of the presentative paradigm can occur with a subordinate or deictic relative clause and thereby enter a paradigm of focalization: *c'est X qui/que*…, *il y a X qui/que*…, *voici/voilà X qui/que*… In addition to these, I have focalization constructions which are not derived from a presentative construction: *il a X qui/que*…, *X est là qui/que*…

The focalization paradigm comprises the following members:

Il était une fois une belle pricesse qui vivait dans un vieux château 'Once upon a time there was a beautiful princess who lived in an old castle'

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

As illustrated in example (25), the presentative *voici*/*voilà* can occur with a deictic relative. This is a new reanalysis which presupposes a number of previous reanalyses, presented in the preceding sections. I hypothesize that the reanalyses at the constructional level 1 from subordinate to deictic relative, and the grammaticalization of *voici*/*voilà* are more or less parallel processes during the Middle Ages, because I have no textual evidence that one should precede the other. The subsequent reanalyses as members of paradigms, Paradigm 1 and 2 (level 2), respectively, take place from the 16th century onwards (Oppermann-Marsaux 2006, Kragh & Schøsler 2015).

This means that both the ideas of progression and simultaneity expressed in the deictic relative, and presentation expressed by the grammaticalized form *voici*/*voilà* are preconditions for the grammaticalization of the focus construction composed of *voici*/*voilà* and a deictic relative.

*Voici/voilà* are deictic expressions rooted in the time of the utterance, and in order to express simultaneity, typical of holistic constructions, the verb of the deictic relative must be in the present tense. This is in accordance not only with my analysis of *voici/voilà X* and a deictic relative, where they are part of a progressive, holistic and deictic construction (Kragh & Schøsler 2014), but also with the view of Lambrecht (2000: 50–51), who states that the function of this type of focus construction is to present an entity and to express new information about it at the same time. Furthermore, the structure presupposes a known referent (Riegel et al. 2009 [1994]: 456).

Examples (28) to (30) illustrate the difference between presentation and focalization. Example (28) shows a presentative construction with a pronominalization of the object *ma sœur*. Example (29) is also a presentative construction where the NP is specified by a subordinate relative, and the NP including the relative is pronominalized in the object pronoun *la*.

7Example citated from Conti (2010).

8Example citated from Furukawa (2000: 104).

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

In contrast, example (30) illustrates grammaticalized focalisation. Here I find a dislocation of the object *ma sœur* specified not by a subordinate relative, but by a deictic relative being part of a nexus construction. In this case, pronominalization by means of *la* of the antecedent *ma sœur* concerns only the NP *ma sœur*, not the deictic relative.

The possibility of a personal pronoun as antecedent is a specific feature of a deictic relative; this possibility does not exist for subordinate relative clauses, cf. example (29).

Summing up the reanalyses leading to the grammaticalized focalization paradigm: this paradigm is the result of reanalyses of two constructions at a higher level, each with its own paradigmatic structure (Paradigm 1 and Paradigm 2). This implies that characteristic features of Paradigm 1, e.g. progression, and of Paradigm 2, e.g. that *voici* and *voilà* function as presentatives are inherited in Paradigm 3, as schematized in Figure 5.

The focalization paradigm is presented in Paradigm 3 and is composed of the constructions exemplified above (examples 22–27).

The *syntactic domain* of the paradigm of grammaticalized focalization differs from that of presentative (neutral focus) because it contains an obligatory *qui*/ *que*-clause, which is presented in the figure as follows: (S)VX *qui/que*-clause. The *semantic frame*, i.e. the grammatical meaning, is focalization in the sense that the structures provide important and new information to the interlocutor on new or already known entities.

With respect to the content, the members of the paradigm are, in addition to *focalization*, characterized by four features, namely the option of expressing *opposition*, further information by means of a subordinate relative vs. a nexus construction introduced by *qui/que* expressing progressivity, the option of deictic concord, and the option of deixis. The feature of *deictic concord* refers to coincidence with respect to person, time and place between the matrix and the subordinate or deictic relative. Thus, in example (25) and (30) I find deictic concord between *Voilà* and *qui arrive*, because of the simultaneity of the perception (*voilà*) and the perceived object (*ma sœur qui arrive*). This concept should not

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

Figure 5: From Paradigm 1 and 2 to Paradigm 3

be confused with *deixis*, which refers to the possibility of addressing a hearer explicitly and presupposes the presence of the hearer in the factual or the fictive conversation room. Thus, there is *deixis* in example (25) and (30), because the speaker is addressing the hearer explicitly, which presupposes the presence of the hearer in the factual or the fictive conversation space.

The structures identified as focus constructions have been characterized by means of the following criteria: focalization ±opposition, subordination *versus* nexus relation, ±deictic concord between the matrix and the relative clause, with restrictions on tense, mood, etc., and ±deixis in the construction. According to these criteria, *C'est X qui*/*que* clause is the unmarked member of the paradigm; since it has fewest restrictions. It expresses focalization with or without opposition to another referent and can have deictic concord between the matrix and the relative, but has no restrictions on tense and mood, etc., and it has no deixis in the construction. The relation between the relative clause and the antecedent is a relation of subordination. The other structures are opposed to this unmarked construction as marked members. Among the marked members, the *il y a qui/que* structure is less marked than the *voici*/*voilà qui, il a X qui*, and *il est là qui* structures because it has fewer restrictions on tense and mood. It does not express

### Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

Table 3: Paradigm of focalization (Kragh & Schøsler 2019). m: marked member of paradigm; u : unmarked member of paradigm.

### 11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

deixis. The three last mentioned structures share the following criteria: like *il y a qui/que* they focus without indication of opposition and they form a nexus construction. In contrast with *il y a X qui/que*, they have deictic concord, but only *voici/voilà X qui* has deixis, i.e. presupposes the presence of the hearer in the same factual or fictive conversation room as the speaker.

As illustrated in Figure 5, level 3 presupposes level 2, and not vice-versa. In chronological terms this relation of precondition is confirmed by my corpus investigations, which show that level 2 can be found from the 13th century, whereas level 3 occurs by the end of the 17th century, spreading in the 19th century. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that grammaticalized focalization is the result of a reanalysis of the presentative structure, with the consequence of focalization being clearly marked.

It is my hypothesis that other usages of the verb *voir* have led to pathways similar to the ones presented so far and into other grammatical paradigms as suggested in Section 1.

I shall now give a brief overview of four of these processes of reanalyses and grammaticalizations leading to *tu vois* as a discourse marker (Section 4.2), *se voir* as a member of the voice paradigm (Section 4.3), *vu* as preposition, and *vu que* as member of the paradigm of subordinate conjunctions (Section 4.3.2), in order to show further perspectives of my approach.

## **4.2 Level 1: Reanalyses to constructions and sub-levels**

The origin of verbal discourse markers like *Tu vois, mon bonheur passe* 'You know, my happiness is waning' is widely debated (Kragh 2021). My hypothesis is that this type of discourse markers originates as a reanalysis of a complex phrase of the type *Tu vois que mon bonheur passe* → *tu vois, mon bonheur passe* (level 1).

Based on this first reanalysis, I have observed a subsequent reanalysis of *tu vois, vous voyez, voyons* and *voilà* leading to the creation of a discourse marker paradigm. For a detailed account of this process, I refer to Kragh (2021, forthcoming).

## **4.3 Level 1: Reanalyses to constructions and sub-levels**

As illustrated in Figure 7, I assume that different reanalyses also precede the voice paradigm (Paradigm 5), and the preposition and conjunction paradigms (Paradigms 6 and 7), respectively.

Figure 6: From constructional level to paradigmatic level, Paradigm 4

Figure 7: From constructional level to paradigmatic level, Paradigms 5, 6, and 7

11 The importance of paradigmatic analyses

### **4.3.1 Level 2, Paradigm 5**

As part of the voice paradigm, the reflexive form of *voir* (see example 31) competes not only with the active construction (*Le gouvernement augmente les prix* 'The government raises the prices'), but also with other ways of expressing a state of affairs without an agent or an active subject, e.g. the passive construction (*Les prix sont augmentés* 'The prices have gone up'), the unaccusative construction (*Les prix augmentent* 'The prices go up'), the reflexive unaccusative construction (*Les prix s'augmentent* 'The prices go up'), and the deontic reflexive passive (*Le vin blanc se boit frais* 'White wine should be served chilled'), and a number of impersonal constructions (e.g. *On augmente les prix* 'The prices have gone up'). Periphrastic reflexive passives, typically with an affected person as subject are found with the verbs *faire* ('to make') and *voir*, and express mainly activities that are adverse to an affected person:

(31) Pierre se voit refuser l'accès 'Peter is denied entrance…'

Thus, they differ from both active, unaccusative, and passive constructions with regard to types of agent and patient, and to the event described. It should be noted that *se voir* has been included among passive constructions by a few other scholars, e.g. by Grevisse & Goosse (2008: 1051) where it is called *auxiliaire du passif* and classified among the semi-auxiliaries, whereas Defrancq (2000: 188) uses the term *passif de l'objet prépositionnel*.

### **4.3.2 Level 2, Paradigms 6 and 7**

Paradigms 6 and 7 have in common that they are formed from the past participle of *voir*. Preliminary results indicate that *vu* as a preposition occurs from the 14th century (Rey & Rey-Debove 1986), and suggest that this precedes the conjunction *vu que*, of which the first occurrences found are from the 15th century (Frantext). Both the preposition *vu* and the conjunction *vu que* are grammatical entities; they have no lexical, but only grammatical meaning. Therefore, I do not consider them to be cases of lexicalization. Whether *vu que* is the result of a regrammation of the preposition *vu* or rather of the participle (as in *Il a vu que…*) remains to be investigated.