Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International ... - STIBA Malang

4 Svenja Kranich
Fitzmaurice 2004a, 2004b & Killie 2004; Smitterberg 2004, 2005). This can be seen
as related to the general interest in processes of subjectification and their relation
to grammaticalization processes (cf. e.g., Traugott 995 & Traugott/Dasher 2002), a
relation which is not as straightforward as it has sometimes been understood to be.
In this paper, I will pursue a twofold aim: on the one hand, I wish to study the
particular subjective functions of the English progressive, considering such questions
as how these subjective functions can be distinguished from the aspectual
functions, which different types of subjective progressives we find, and how and
with which frequency they are used in seventeenth and eighteenth century English.
On the other hand, I wish to add to the general discussion of how grammaticalization
and subjectification are typically related.
Before going into any detail, it seems desirable to provide some definitions,
since there is no perfect agreement as to the use of the terminology. I shall use the
term ‘grammaticalization’ in a general sense to refer “to the steps whereby particular
items become more grammatical through time” (Hopper/Traugott 2003: 2). Especially
in the context of the relation to subjectification processes, it is important to
further distinguish between primary and secondary grammaticalization, following
Traugott’s (forthc.) latest account: primary grammaticalization refers to the process
by which a lexical item or items first become(s) grammaticalized, while secondary
grammaticalization refers to developments by which already grammaticalized
items or constructions become more grammatical. Subjectification – the process
by which “[m]eanings […] become increasingly based in the speaker’s subjective
belief state/attitude toward the situation” (Traugott 990: 500) – typically accompanies
only the former process, or even precedes it (Traugott forthc.). Subjectification
in this sense is to be understood as a type of semantic change and not, as the term
sometimes seems to be understood, as a type of grammaticalization.
The focus of this paper is on a period where one can witness the secondary
grammaticalization of the progressive, i.e., the gradual fixation of its aspectual
function. In this paper I would like to take further Traugott’s view that secondary
grammaticalization is not typically accompanied by subjectification. I will argue
that secondary grammaticalization generally rather leads to more objective meanings.
This will be referred to by the term ‘objectification’, which accordingly can be
defined as a process by which items/constructions become less available for the
expression of the speaker’s belief state/attitudes toward a proposition.
I will now examine how this general hypothesis is borne out by the development
of the English progressive. To get a better idea of the general direction of
the development, I will first present a very brief summary of the development of
the meaning of the progressive from Old English (OE) to Early Modern English
(EModE). Following that, I shall present a categorization of types of subjective
progressives and discuss some problems connected to distinguishing them from