ABSTRACT

The still central topic of grammaticalization research to explain how grammatical markers (henceforth grams) emerge from lexical items or different grams has been, though not under this term, an important concern of Bantuistics since the earliest studies. One finds reliable etymological reconstructions of individual grams and observations on how certain gram types evolve (see, e.g. Meinhof 1906/1948:113-14, 125-6, 176, 190) as well as rather fancy speculations (ibid.:63-4 on the origin of individual noun class prefixes). Yet, grammaticalization today no longer deals only with so-called gram class-formation (see Himmelmann 1992:16-18). It can be and often is conceived of as language change leading in general to grammatical structure. The problem of how to conceptualize and conclusively define the notion of grammar has also led to the concept of grammaticalization becoming very diversified. While grammar traditionally comprises the two purportedly static and discrete domains of morphology and syntax, it is viewed in a very different and broader sense as the ever changing ‘collectively possessed inventory of forms available for the construction of discourse’ (Hopper in Bright 1992, I:366f., see also Hopper 1987). It is impossible here to tackle such theoretical issues or to discuss other general problems in grammaticalization. The reader should consult instead major works in this thriving research discipline like Givón (1979a), Lehmann (1995 [1982]), Heine and Reh (1984), Traugott and Heine (1991), Heine et al. (1991), Himmelmann (1992), Hopper and Traugott (1993), Bybee et al. (1994), Pagliuca (1994), or Giacalone Ramat and Hopper (1998). What most scholars agree on is that a grammaticalization change is the result of a complex composite of factors. Even when disregarding the important sociolinguistic parameters that determine the actuation of a given linguistic pattern leading eventually to its establishment within a speech community, there still remain several factors which directly relate to its function as a complex expression conveying meaning: for example, the semantic components of the individual linguistic signs involved, their relation to other signs on the paradigmatic dimension, and – most importantly – the larger communicative setting wherein an expression is used (including all its accompanying discourse-pragmatic implicatures).