GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS*

BERND HEINE
Institut für Afrikanistik, Universitat zu Köln

ABSTRACT

Recent studies in grammaticalization suggest that the development of gram-

matical categories is the result of an interaction between cognitive and
pragmatic operations, and that this development may lead to the rise of
continuous linguistic structures which have been referred to as gram-
maticalization chains (Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991a; Craig 1991;
Heine 1991). In the present paper it is argued that grammaticalization
chains are linguistic categories having the form of a specific type of family
resemblance structure. An example from Charnus, a Maa dialect of the
Nilo-Saharan family, is presented to illustrate the nature of grammaticaliza-
tion chains.

1. Introduction1

In the structuralist tradition of linguistics established by de Saussure,

the following assumptions in some way or other were considered to consti-
tute cornerstones of linguistic theory:
(a) that the units which make up language form discrete taxa or categories;
(b) that these units can be allocated to specific classes of morphemes,
words, and/or constituents, and to specific levels of language structure
such as phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics;
(c) that there is a rigid boundary separating synchronic and diachronic lin-
guistic phenomena.
The position maintained by many authors during the structuralist era is
illustrated by the following statement by Hockett: "[...] if we find continu-
ous-scale contrasts in the vicinity of what we are sure is language, we

Studies in Language 16:2 (1992), 335–368. DOI 10.1075/sl.l6.2.05hei

ISSN 0378–4177 / E-ISSN 1569–9978 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
336 BERND HEINE

exclude them from language [...]" (Hockett 1955: 17). The fact that the
open-class nature of at least one component of language structure, the lexi-
con, is hard to reconcile with such a position was usually explained away in
some way or other. The following proposal by Halliday is an attempt to
deal with this problem:
Any part of linguistic form which is not concerned with the operation of
closed systems belongs to the level of lexis. The distinction between closed
system patterns and open set patterns in language is in fact a cline; but the
theory has to treat them as two distinct types of pattern requiring different
categories. For this reason General Linguistic theory must here provide
both a theory of grammar and a theory of lexis, and also a means of relat-
ing the two (Halliday 1961: 247).
There is no doubt that approaches in terms of discrete categorization
are economical, practical, as well as descriptively and pedagogically useful
since they provide easy access to language structure. On the other hand, it
should be made clear that such approaches may entail a rigid simplification
or even distortion of the data to be analyzed. Thus, while I do not wish to
challenge the usefulness of such approaches, I will argue that they capture
only one aspect of language structure, and that a more comprehensive
theory of language also has to account for linguistic phenomena which are
hard to reconcile with the characteristics listed above. Some of these
phenomena will be the subject of the present paper; they have to do with:
probabilities rather than with a fixed rule behavior,
continuity rather than with discrete categorization, and with
vagueness and fuzzy boundaries rather than with clear-cut boundaries.
Attention will be drawn to the presence of a specific kind of linguistic
structure which differs drastically from conventional types of categories.
The notion "chain" was introduced by Claudi and Heine (1986) and
adapted by Craig (1991) and Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991a: Ch.
8.4) to refer to such structures. Instead of "chain", the term "continuum"
(Heine & Reh 1984: 15; Kölver 1984) or "grammaticalization scale"
(Lehmann 1982; Heine & Claudi 1986) was used in earlier works. 2 It is
hoped that the following discussion will make it clear that "chain" is in fact
a more appropriate label; Colette Craig describes this phenomenon in the
following way:
The term 'chain' is used to evoke the step-by-step nature of the gram-
maticalization process, which is most directly observable in the pairing of
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 337

two morphemes through a scenario of change, creating links with the inter-
nal structure outlined below:
[SOURCE ... pathway ... OUTCOME]
Chaining happens when the outcome of a link becomes the source compo-
nent of another link [...]. Incorporating the notions of grammaticalization
and chaining into the descriptive grammar of a language has the effect of
adding both a dynamic and a diachronic dimension to the task. In the syn-
chronic study of a particular language, the phenomenon of 'chaining' sur-
faces in morphemes related by polysemy which can be interpreted as traces
of links of various chains (Craig 1991: 455-456).
In the following paragraphs it will be argued that grammaticalization
chains constitute a type of linguistic category that has not been accounted
for adequately in linguistic theory. As has been argued elsewhere (Heine,
Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991a; 1991b), such categories are mainly the result
of context-induced reinterpretation and the interaction between cognitive3
and pragmatic forces.

2. The Charnus lexeme -yyéú

In the present section, an example is provided to illustrate the nature

of grammaticalization chains. This example is taken from the Charnus
dialect of Maa, an Eastern Nilotic language of the Nilo-Saharan family spo-
ken in Kenya and Tanzania. Maa is a verb-initial (VSO) language distin-
guishing three noun genders, feminine (F), masculine (M), and place (P),
where feminine is the unmarked gender. Further typological features are
the presence of a tone system,4 cross-height vowel harmony, of a case dis-
tinction absolutive (ABS) vs. nominative (NOM) marked by tone, and of a
large number of verbal derivative extensions. Another typological feature,
which is particularly relevant here, is the aspectual distinction imperfective
vs. perfective, which permeates the entire verbal system. In most previous
treatments of the language, especially in the Maasai grammar by Tucker
and Mpaayei (1955), this distinction has been analyzed as one of tense,
where the imperfective was called "present tense" and the perfective "past
tense". Recent research carried out by Christa König (p.c.) clearly suggests
that such an analysis is inappropriate. The imperfective shows no particular
relation to deictic time; it may refer to either future, present or past situa-
tions, while the perfective is confined to present or past situations. The
examples presented below all relate to the imperfective, which is the
unmarked form of this distinction.
338 BERND HEINE

My concern will be exclusively with the lexeme -yyéú, which exhibits a

wide range of uses, where each is suggestive of a particular stage of gram-
maticalization. I shall discuss the most salient of these stages in turn. -yyéú
may form the main verb of a clause, where it functions as a verb of volition
whose subject is a human, wilful participant and whose object is a noun
phrase which may be inanimate, as in (1), or animate, as in (2). 5
(1) k-á-yyéú n-daâ
k-1SG- F-food.ABs
'I want food'
(2) k-á-yyéú m-partút
k-1SG- F-woman.ABS
'I want a wife/woman'
Example (3) differs from the preceding ones in that the complement is
not an object noun phrase but a clause in the "narrative (n-) tense" (Tucker
& Mpaayei 1955), and that -yyéú is no longer the main verb but has more
in common with an auxiliary, which is followed by a main verb. 6 Note that
the subject may either follow -yyéú, as in (3a), or the main verb, as in (3b).
(3) a. k-á-yyéú nánu n-a-ló n-kaŋ
k-1SG- I.NOM NAR-1SG-gO F-home.ABS
'I want to go home'
b. k-á-yyéú n-a-ló nánu n-karj
k-1SG NAR-lSG-gO I.NOM F-home.ABS
(same meaning as (a))
The next stage in the grammaticalization of the lexeme -yyéú is one
where this lexeme is applied to contexts where the semantics of volition
would not make much sense, as in (4).
(4) k-é-yyéú l-páyyan n-é-rriá
k-3sG- M-elder NAR-3sG-fall
'the old man nearly fell'
In such contexts, the lexical meaning 'want' is backgrounded and
another interpretation foregrounded or perspectivized — one which, at
least in the cognitive-pragmatic universe of Charnus speakers, would "make
sense": since nobody "wants" to fall, the sentence "the old man wanted to
fall" is interpreted to designate that that man nearly fell.
Now, while a verbal meaning 'want' typically requires a wilful, human
subject, this does not apply to the interpretation 'be about to', which can
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 339

also be used in the case of subject participants which are neither human nor
wilful but rather inanimate. The extension of -yyéú from human partici-
pants ('the man wants ...') to inanimate ones ('the tree wants ...') has had
remarkable implications for the meaning of the auxiliary, as (5) shows.
(5) k-é-yyéú l-cáni n-é-uróri
k-3sG- M-tree.NOM NAR-3sG-fall
'the tree almost fell'
Since an inanimate participant is incapable of wilful behaviour, the
auxiliary underwent what has been called context-induced reinterpretation
by Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991a): a proposition like 'the tree
wanted to fall' is interpreted as meaning 'the tree almost fell'. With this
interpretation, an aspectual notion was introduced: in examples such as (5),
the auxiliary expresses the sense 'having almost reached the situation
described by the main verb'. This new sense has been conventionalized to
an aspectual category, and as such, it is no longer confined to animate sub-
jects.
The next stage is one where the aspectual meaning also affects the
morphosyntax — with the effect that -yyéú is grammaticalized to an aspect
morpheme which I propose to call the ALMOST-aspect. This development
has the following implications:
(a) The lexeme -yyéú is grammaticalized in its 3rd person singular
form to an invariable aspect marker (k)eyyéú which may no longer be
inflected for person or aspect, as example (6) shows.
(6) (k-)eyyéú a-ók nánu kulέ
1sG-drink I.NOM milk
T was about to drink milk'
(b) The following main verb may no longer take the "narrative"
marker n- but rather appears in the imperfective aspect, for the following
reason: the marker n- may not be prefixed to the first verb of a sentence
and, with the grammaticalization of -yyéú to an aspect marker, the main
verb is now the first verb in the sentence — with the effect that the structure
[auxiliary — main verb] is reanalyzed as a structure [aspect marker —
verb].
(c) In accordance with the verb-initial syntax of Charnus, the subject
has to follow either the auxiliary verb or the main verb. 7 With the loss of its
verbal status, (k)eyyéú may no longer be followed by the subject noun
340 BERND HEINE

phrase, rather the subject has to be preceded by the main verb. Example
(7a) is therefore ungrammatical and has to be replaced by (7b).
(7) a. *(k)eyyéú ninye e-ók kulέ
b. (k)eyyéú e-ók ninye kulέ
3sG-drink s/he.NOM milk.ABS
's/he almost drank milk'
The grammaticalization of (k)eyyéú has, however, gone even one step
further. In the above examples, I have given a simplified translation of the
sentences in the ALMOST-aspect. Thus, a more appropriate translation of
(4) would be 'the old man almost fell (but he didn't)', and of (6) T almost
drank milk (but I didn't)', etc. While the focal sense of (k)eyyéú in exam-
ples such as (4) or (6) in fact is 'having almost reached the situation
described by the main verb', there is also a general inference to the effect
that that situation is actually not reached, that is, the ALMOST-aspect has
a non-focal sense 'the situation described by the main verb is actually not
reached'. 8 Now in certain contexts, this non-focal sense may turn into a
focal one. This is the case in particular in replies to certain polar questions
where situations in the past are implied, as in (8).
(8) i-túm-o m-partút? (k)éyyeu a-túm
2sG-get-PFv F-woman.ABS 1SG-get
'Did you get a wife? No (but I almost did)'
In such contexts, (k)eyyéú9 assumes the function of a negation marker.
Thus, (9) is similar in meaning to (10), where the perfective negation
marker eitú is used.
(9) έ-comɔ l-páyyan n-káŋ? éyyeu
3sG-go.PFv M-elder.NOM F-home?
'Did the old man go home? No (but he almost did)'
(10) e-comɔ l-páyyan n-káŋ? eitú
'Did the old man go home? No (not yet)'
These are but the most salient uses, or stages, as I will refer to them,
in the use of the lexeme -yyéú. The different meanings of this form may be
described as an example of polysemy, although one might argue that the
fact that -yyéú behaves as a lexical category on the one hand, and as a gram-
matical one on the other, makes it a doubtful candidate for polysemy (cf.
Lyons 1977: 561). I will return to this issue in Section 7. The behavior of
these stages is summarized in Table 1, where Stage I represents the least
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 341

grammaticalized and V the most strongly grammaticalized form of what in

grammaticalization theory is called a chain of grammaticalization.

Table 1. The semantic and morphosyntactic behavior of the Charnus lexeme

-yyéú

STAGE
Parameter I II III IV V
Example in text (1,2) (3) (4,5) (6,7) (8,9)
1 Conceptual wilful, wilful, inanimate inanimate inanimate
nature of human human or animate or animate or animate
the subject
2 Conceptual inanimate clausal clausal clausal clausal
nature of the or animate proposition proposition proposition proposition
"complement" patient
3 Meaning volition volition aspect aspect negation
4 Morphosyntactic full verb auxiliary auxiliary invariable invariable
status like like particle particle
5 Status of the noun verb in verb in imperfec- imperfec-
"complement" phrase n-tense n-tense tive tive
6 Time spectrum future, future,
of the propos- present present present present
ition or past or past or past or past past
7 Position of before before before after after
the subject "comple- or after or after main main
ment" main verb main verb verb verb

3. Discussion

The example presented in Section 2 is in no way extraordinary. First,

the grammaticalization of a verb of volition ('want') to a kind of aspectual
marker expressing the notion 'nearly, almost' can be observed in a number
of languages. In Chrau, a Mon-Khmer language, the verb conh 'want to'
has developed into a non-negatable preverbal particle meaning 'almost,
about to', as can be seen in the following example:
342 BERND HEINE

(11) Chrau (Mon-Khmer, Sino-Tibetan; Matisoff 1991)

anh conh saq anh conh chut
1.SG want.to go 1.SG almost die
'I want to go' 'I am about to die'
Similarly, in Southern Sotho, a Bantu language, the verb -batla 'seek,
desire, want' has become an auxiliary with an ALMOST-aspect function
('act almost'), e.g.
(12) Southern Sotho (Bantu, Niger-Congo; Doke & Mofokeng
[1957] 1985:247)
ke-ile ka-batla libuka tseo ke-ile ka-batla ke-e-shoa
'I wanted those books' 'I nearly died'
In Bulgarian, the verb sta 'want', when used in the past tense, has
assumed the function of an ALMOST-aspect:
(13) Bulgarian (Tania Kuteva, p.c.)
Ne šta. Az štjax da padna.
NEG want.l.sG I want.PAST.I.SG INF fall.PFv.l.sG
T don't want.' T nearly fell down.'
Bulgarian šta 'want' has also acquired inferences of a negation marker
in replies to certain questions where situations in the past are implied, e.g.
(14) Bulgarian (Tania Kuteva, p.c.)
Oženi li se? štjax.
get.married.PAST.2.SG QU REFL want.PAST.I.SG
'Did you get married? No (but I almost did).
Note also that in Margi, a Chadic language of the Afroasiatic family,
the verb àyí 'want' has been grammaticalized to a particle meaning 'nearly'
(Hoffmann 1963: 219).
Second, the grammaticalization of Charnus -yyéú is in line with com-
mon patterns to be observed in the development from verb to auxiliary such
as the following (see Heine Forthcoming):
(a) The concrete lexical semantics of the verb is "bleached out", gradually
giving way to grammatical meanings relating to such domains as tense,
aspect, modality, voice, or negation.
(b) The verb loses its association with human subjects.
(c) The verb is decategorialized (Hopper & Thompson 1984), it loses its
ability to inflect and turns into an invariable marker.
(d) The verb loses its syntagmatic variability: its position in the clause
becomes fixed.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 343

There are, however, a few questions that remain to be addressed in

order to understand the structure underlying the various uses of -yyéú. One
of them relates to the linguistic relevance of the five stages described in
Table 1. The sole justification for distinguishing these stages is that each of
them exhibits a distinct linguistic structure, and that the entire range of var-
iation to be found in the use of -yyéú can be accounted for with reference to
these stages.
A second question is: What is the status of the five stages of Table 1
vis-à-vis the distinction synchrony vs. diachrony? Are we dealing with a
synchronic or a diachronic structure? Since all five stages are found in pre-
sent-day spoken Charnus, there is reason to call this structure a synchronic
chain. At the same time, however, there is also evidence to suggest that this
structure also has a diachronic status. For example, work on grammaticali-
zation carried out so far in a number of languages10 suggests the following
lines of historical development which are relevant to the case considered
here, while developments in the opposite direction are unlikely to happen:
full verb > auxiliary verb
verb > negation marker
auxiliary verb > tense or aspect particle
Furthermore, grammaticalization entails patterns of reanalysis like the
following:
nominal complement > clausal complement
human participant > inanimate participant
variability in word order > fixed word order
On the basis of such findings there is reason to assume that the struc-
ture sketched in Table 1 represents simultaneously a synchronic and a dia-
chronic chain. These observations also take care of another problem,
namely the question as to how the ordering of the five stages vis-à-vis each
other is to be justified. The linear ordering has both a diachronic and a syn-
chronic dimension: diachronic in that a given stage can be assumed to be
historically prior to any other stage to its left, that is, ordering reflects a dia-
chronic process. At the same time it is also synchronic since a given stage is
more grammaticalized than any other stage to its left, where "more gram-
maticalized" in this case means either more abstract in semantic content,
more decategorialized in its morphological behavior, more restricted in its
syntagmatic variability, more reduced in its phonological substance, or any
combination thereof (see Lehmann 1982; Heine & Reh 1984; Traugott &
Heine 1991; Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991a).
344 BERND HEINE

A fourth question relates to the psychological status of these stages. In

accordance with general principles of grammaticalization we may assume
that in processes like the ones to be reconstructed for -yyéú, cognitive man-
ipulation of concrete lexical concepts (in the present example a verb for
'want') for the expression of grammatical concepts (the grammatical func-
tion of an ALMOST-aspect) plays a crucial rôle. So far, these processes
have been reconstructed exclusively on the basis of linguistic evidence;
psychometric tests to establish how these reconstructions relate to extra-lin-
guistic behavior, for example, have not been carried out, neither in the pre-
sent study nor in comparable earlier studies. No attempt is therefore made
here to determine what, e.g., the notion "psychological reality" means with
reference to the various uses of -yyéú.
A fifth question concerns the internal structure of these uses. While
there is no problem in determining the endpoints of the structure of -yyéú
as presented in Table 1, it is more difficult to segment it into meaningful
units. For example, one might adopt a semantically based approach and say
that in Stages I and II, -yyéú has a verbal meaning (parameter 3), while in
the remaining stages it has a grammatical function. This division, however,
is at variance with the morphosyntactic behavior of this item, which
suggests quite a different segmentation.
Alternatively, one might adopt a prototype approach and argue that
Stage I is suggestive of a prototype of "verbhood" whereas Stage V is rep-
resentative of one of a grammatical category, while the intermediate stages
constitute less prototypical instances to be found in, at, or around the inter-
section of these two prototypes. Figure 1 would be a graphical representa-
tion of such a position.

Figure 1. A prototype approach to the linguistic behavior of the Charnus

lexeme -yyéú
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 345

While such an approach would capture some of the characteristics of

the behavior of -yyéú, it remains arbitrary to some extent as to where
exactly the center and where the intersection, or intersections, of the pro-
totype are to be located. Rather, it would seem that a more appropriate
approach would be one which treats each of the five stages as a unit of its
own, marked by a distinct set of linguistic properties. At the same time,
however, these properties are not confined in their occurrence to a given
stage, rather most of them are shared by more than one stage. The result is
an overlapping or chaining structure whose members each share several
characteristics with adjacent members. This structure, which is typical of all
grammaticalization chains described so far, can be represented graphically
as in Figure 2.

Figure 2. A grammaticalization chain of the Charnus lexeme -yyéú

The behavior of -yyéú may be summarized thus:

(a) The many uses of this lexeme can be arranged in the form of five
stages, with each stage showing a distinct linguistic behavior.
(b) The various stages form a linear structure extending from Stage I as the
least grammaticalized member to Stage V as the most strongly gram-
maticalized one, that is, a given stage or member is more gram-
maticalized than any of the members to its left, but less gram-
maticalized than any of the members to its right.
(c) These members are, however, not discrete entities, rather they show a
chain-like behavior since several of their properties are also shared by
adjacent members.
(d) Grammaticalization chains have both a synchronic and a diachronic
dimension; they are the result of a historical process leading from less
grammatical, i.e., typically from lexical entities to more grammatical
ones, and this process leads to context-dependent synchronic variation.
These observations have a number of implications for the linguistic
status of lexemes such as -yyéú, in particular the following:
346 BERND HEINE

(e) As we have seen above, there is no meaningful way of dividing the var-
ious uses of -yyéú into, say, a verbal and an aspectual component or
category, neither on the basis of discrete ("classical") categorization
nor on the basis of prototype logic. Rather the entire range of uses con-
stitutes a single linguistic entity, one that embraces both lexical and
grammatical uses. Grammaticalization chains thus appear to form lin-
guistic categories sui generis which are elusive of orthodox approaches
to categorization.

4. Approaches to categorization

In order to describe the nature of grammaticalization chains in more

detail, a survey of some of the more salient approaches to defining linguistic
classes or categories seems in order. In most linguistic treatments, the pro-
cedure adopted for establishing basic units of grammar is to establish
monothetic classes. According to this procedure, an entity is allocated to a
given class if it satisfies a fixed set of criteria. If only one criterion is not
met, membership is ruled out, or else an alternative procedure is consulted
to accommodate "borderline cases," "satellite" taxa, and the like. In the
area of semantics, this is the position taken, for example, by Katz (1972:
20).
Compared to this rigid taxonomic approach, the polythetic procedure
offers a more flexible alternative (see Altmann 1972) since it does not
require that all units belonging to a given class satisfy a fixed set of criteria
or share a certain set of features. A polythetic class is defined by the pre-
sence of a number of properties, where:
(a) each member of that class has a number of these properties, irrespec-
tive of which ones these are,
(b) each property is shared by a number of class members, but
(c) no property is shared by all members of that class.
In the case of totally polythetic classes, all three conditions are met,
but the presence of (a) and (b) is sufficient to define a polythetic class.
What is obvious from this characterization is, first, that the notion of
polythetic class is a quantitative one which crucially depends on how the
phrase "a large number of" is to be defined. Second, the distinction of the
center and the periphery is largely irrelevant for understanding polythetic
classes, although it is possible to calculate which of the members shares the
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 347

largest or smallest number of attributes, respectively, with all other mem-

bers, and thereby rank all members according to their relative degree of
centrality or peripherality.
Instead of monothetic models, polythetic models are nowadays
increasingly being recognized as legitimate tools of linguistic categorization,
in particular within the tradition of prototype theory. Two linguistic studies
by Hopper and Thompson (1984; 1985) and Croft (1984), respectively, may
be particularly worth mentioning. Both are concerned with the categorial
status of nouns and verbs, rely on discourse pragmatics as an important
parameter,11 and describe these word classes on the basis of the distinction
between core/central/representative members on the one hand and non-
core/peripheral/non-representative members on the other. Core members
are said to be high in categorial status and to display the full grammatical
behavior characteristic of their category,12 while non-core members are
lower in cardinal categoriality and tend to be "de-categorialized". The
advantages and disadvantages of this approach will be looked at below.
The observations made above suggest that grammaticalization chains
cannot be defined as monothetic classes, rather they exhibit a number of
traits that link them with polythetic classes. There are in particular two
polythetic concepts that appear to be relevant here. The first is that of
radial categories. Grammaticalization chains are in fact similar in nature to
the meaning chains and lexical networks discussed by Brugman (1981),
Lakoff (1982), Norvig and Lakoff (1987), Hawkins (1988) and others, and
the radial categories of Lakoff (1987). Radial categories or structures have
the following characteristics:13
(a) They have a prototype structure.
(b) They have a central model, central subcategory or central case on the
one hand, and extension models, noncentral extensions or conven-
tionalized variations on the other. The latter cannot be predicted by
general rules, rather they have to be learned (Lakoff 1987: 84).
(c) The central model determines the possibilities for the variations, which
are motivated by the central model plus a number of general principles
of extension.
(d) The links by means of which variations are derived from the central
model are image schema transformation, metaphor, metonymy, frame-
addition, etc. (cf. Norvig & Lakoff 1987: 197-198).
348 BERND HEINE

A related framework can be seen in the prototype extension model of

Givón (1989). What radial categories and prototype extension have in com-
mon with grammaticalization chains is that both are motivated by a similar
kind of cognitive process and that both are described in terms of a chaining
principle (Lakoff 1987: 91-114). It does not become entirely clear, however,
whether indeed radial categories satisfy the criteria proposed by Rosch
(1973; 1978) to define prototypes; rather, we are confronted with a network
of subcategories or senses which are all part of one and the same entity,
which is a lexical item.
The second approach is that of family resemblance theory, a notion
introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), according to which categories
have no defining set of properties or attributes, that is, there is no attribute
shared by all members of a category, yet each member has at least one attri-
bute in common with some other member of that category, or, to use the
slightly different wording of Rosch and Mervis:
A family resemblance relationship consists of a set of items of the form
AB, BC, CD, DE. That is, each item has at least one, and probably sev-
eral, elements in common with one or more other items, but no, or few,
elements are common to all items (Rosch & Mervis 1975: 575).
Family resemblance categories may be described as special instances of
polythetic classes, whose members share more features with one another
than they do with members of contrasting categories (Ward & Scott 1987:
42).
An analysis of the grammaticalization chain presented in Table 1
suggests in fact that this chain fully qualifies as a family resemblance catego-
ry, consisting of five stages or members. The numbers of attributes shared
by the various members are summarized in Table 2.
According to these figures, it is the following characteristics which
define the -yyéú chain as a family resemblance category:
(a) No attribute is common to all members of the chain, other than the
fact that they share an identical (or similar) form.14 As can be seen in Table
1, there is only one attribute (the conceptual nature of the complement)
which is shared by four members, while all other attributes are confined to
three or less members.
(b) None of the members combines all the attributes distinguished.
(c) Each member has at least one property in common with some
other member.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 349

Table 2. Number of attributes shared by the five members of the gram-

maticalization chain of Charnus -yyéú (I, II, etc. = members; 1, 2,
etc. = number of shared properties)

Member I II III IV V Shared attributes

Total Average
I - 3 0 0 0 3 0.75
II 3 - 4 0 0 7 1.75
III 0 4 - 4 2 10 2.50
IV 0 0 4 - 5 9 2.25
V 0 0 2 5 - 7 1.75
Attributes shared by all members: 18 1.80
shared by adjacent members: 16 4.00
shared by non-adjacent members: 2 0.33
shared by peripheral members
(I andV): 0 0

In fact, grammaticalization chains are family resemblance categories of

a specific type, namely linear categories having a one-dimensional exten-
sion. This fact allows us to propose two more characteristics, namely:
(d) The endpoints, that is, Members I and V, do not have any attri-
bute in common. In addition, this also applies to members I and III, I and
IV, and II and IV, which do not share any attribute either.
(e) Immediately adjacent members have more attributes in common
than non-adjacent members. Thus, Table 2 shows that the average number
of attributes shared by all members is 1.80, while that shared by neighbor-
ing members is more than twice as high, i.e., 4.00.
(f) In accordance with (e), non-peripheral members, that is in particu-
lar members located at the center of the chain, have the highest number of
attributes in common with all other members, whereas peripheral members
have the lowest number in common with other members. Thus, as Table 2
shows, the highest numbers (2.50 and 2.25, respectively), are found with
the central members III and IV, while the members I and V, located at the
endpoints of the chain, share the lowest number of properties (0.75 and
1.75, respectively).
Point (f) raises an issue again that I have briefly commented upon
above: the question as to whether grammaticalization chains have a pro-
totype structure. Rosch and Mervis (1975) studied the rôle of prototypes in
350 BERND HEINE

family resemblance and proposed two measures for each category member-
ship: its prototypicality rating and its rating of the number of common attri-
butes, and they came to the conclusion that the two measures are closely
related. Accordingly, members which have many properties in common
with other members of that category are also likely to be rated as highly
prototypical. This might suggest that members located at the center of a
grammaticalization chain are likely to have the highest ratings for prototyp-
icality. It would seem, however, that more empirical data on grammaticali-
zation chains are required before generalizations of this nature can be for-
mulated, as we will see in Section 5.
To summarize, grammaticalization chains fulfil the criteria proposed
for family resemblance categories; they may be defined as family
resemblance categories of the linear type. This description, however, takes
care of only one aspect of their structure. It should be pointed out at this
stage that, rather than forming an explanatory parameter for grammaticali-
zation, family resemblance can be viewed as an outcome of grammaticaliza-
tion, resulting from the cognitive and pragmatic manipulation leading to the
emergence of new grammatical uses of erstwhile lexical forms (see Heine,
Claudi & Hunnemeyer 1991a). There are a number of other characteristics
which set grammaticalization chains off from other kinds of family
resemblance categories, in particular the following (see Section 2):
(g) They have a diachronic dimension, according to which the leftmost
member typically represents the earliest, and the rightmost member the
latest stage of development.
(h) Grammaticalization chains have a cognitive-semantic dimension,
according to which the leftmost member represents the most concrete con-
ceptual content, and the rightmost member the most abstract one.
(i) They also have a clear-cut morphosyntactic structure, according to
which the leftmost member has the highest and the rightmost member the
lowest degree of paradigmatic and syntagmatic variability (Lehmann 1982;
Heine & Reh 1984: 67).
That the example looked at above does not constitute an isolated
instance can be shown by looking at alternative cases of grammaticaliza-
tion, where the same basic structure can be observed. Table 3 presents an
abstract form of this structure.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 351

Table 3. The nuclear structure of a grammaticalization chain

Stage I II III
Meaning lexical grammatical grammatical
Form lexical lexical grammatical

At Stage I, there is isomorphism between the meaning and the form of

a given linguistic unit. Thus, a lexical item has a lexical meaning (e.g., that
of a noun or a verb). At Stage II, asymmetry between meaning and form is
introduced, in that the lexical item assumes a grammatical function (such as
expressing the notion of an adposition or of a verbal aspect), while retain-
ing its morphosyntax. Finally, at Stage III, isomorphism is restored in that
in contexts where the erstwhile lexical item expresses that grammatical
function, it loses the characteristics of a lexical item (e.g., it may no longer
be inflected for number or definiteness in the case of nouns, and for tense,
aspect and modality in the case of verbs).
A nuclear chain as presented in Table 3 shows most of the salient
characteristics of family resemblance categories listed above, 15 that is, no
attribute is common to all three stages of the chain, each stage has at least
one attribute in common with some other stage, non-peripheral stages (in
this case, Stage II) have the highest number of attributes in common with
other stages, while the endpoints (I and III) do not share any attributes, or
share only a minimal number of attributes.
The nuclear chain of Table 3 in fact captures a more general feature of
grammaticalization processes. Not only can it be observed in "macrostruc-
tures" involving a transition from lexical to grammatical structures, but it is
also characteristic of "microstructures", 16 which can be observed in the
many stages that are intermediate between a lexical and a grammatical
structure, such as the various conceivable stages between Stages I and II, or
between II and III of Table 3. An example is provided by Heine, Claudi
and Hünnemeyer (1991a, Ch. 8.4.1), where the grammaticalization chain
leading from a body part noun (Ewe megbé 'back') to an adposition ('be-
hind') is described in terms of four different stages, with each exhibiting a
distinct semantic and/or morphosyntactic behavior.
352 BERND HEINE

5. Prototype vs. family resemblance

Most research, both psychological and linguistic, has been based on the
assumption that family resemblance structures, wherever they can be
observed, are prototype categories, or can be described in terms of a pro-
totype framework (see especially Rosch & Mervis 1975). For example, both
prototypes and family resemblances involve context-dependent abductive
judgement (Givón 1989: 39), are based on a principle of relative similarity
and have fuzzy boundaries, and thus contrast with classical categories which
are based on the criterion of identity vs. non-identity and are defined in
terms of one or a few necessary and sufficient criterial properties.
In spite of such similarities, however, it would seem to be advisable to
keep prototypes and family resemblances apart in the case of categories
such as the one looked at here. This is also the conclusion reached by
Lichtenberk (1990) in his analysis of the grammaticalization of verbs of
motion ('go', 'come' and 'return') in Oceanic languages:
In the present study, the notion of a central or prototypical meaning or
function of an etymon is not relevant. The various grammatical functions
of each of the etyma discussed here belong in very different categories, and
the notion of prototypical functions does not arise. Thus it does not make
sense to ask whether, for example, the repetition-marking function or the
reflexive-marking function (both deriving from the meaning 'return') is
more central than the other. This is even true when comparing the source
verbal meaning and a derived grammatical function. The meaning 'return'
is primary historically, but at present it cannot be said to be more central
than, for example, the reflexive-marking function that developed from it
(Lichtenberk 1990: 76).
There are in fact a number of objections to analyzing examples such as
the one discussed in Section 2 in terms of a prototype framework. For
example, the member representing the "most basic meaning" in the study
of Heine, Claudi and Hunnemeyer (1991a), referred to above, is not a cen-
tral or "core" member of that category, rather it is a peripheral member,
being located at one endpoint of the relevant category. As we observed in
Section 3, however, it is central members of grammaticalization chains that
share the highest number of attributes with other category members, while
peripheral members have an extremely low number of category attributes.
Second, if indeed lexemes such as -yyéú were to be described in terms
of prototype theory, the question would arise as to whether all the various
members or stages indeed are part of one and the same prototype category.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 353

In accordance with Givón's notion of prototype extension (Givón 1989) one

might argue, for example, that the -yyéú chain consists of more than one
prototype structure. In case such a division should turn out to be a valid
one, this would suggest that membership within the chain might be a func-
tion of similarity to one of several prototype representations, that is, that
-yyéú forms a polycentric category (Taylor 1989: 99), resembling in this
respect the radial categories described by Lakoff and associates (cf. Brug-
man 1981; Lakoff 1987; Norvig & Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1988). On the basis
of the data summarized in Table 1, however, it would seem that there is no
conclusive evidence, neither for the existence of a monocentric nor for that
of a poly centric category.
What may be important in this connection is a distinction between
categories on the one hand and principles of categorization on the other. As
Rosch and Mervis rightly observe, 17 prototypes are structured both in terms
of prototype and family resemblance principles and, similarly, family
resemblance categories have a number of characteristics that appear to be
based on prototype principles. Nevertheless, the data available suggest that
there are categories which are primarily to be understood as prototypes,
such as the ones described in the various works of Rosch and associates, but
that there are also categories which cannot be described exclusively in
terms of prototype logic, and grammaticalization chains are indeed
instances of such categories.
In addition to principles, however, there is yet another parameter that
appears to be relevant for defining the nature of categories, namely that
which concerns the goals of categorization. Research on folk botanic
taxonomy among East African pastoralist societies (cf. Heine & Brenzinger
1988), for example, suggests that the following main goals play a rôle in
judgements on category membership:
(a) To create unambiguous classes and discrete boundaries for con-
cepts, e.g., to determine whether or not taxon A belongs to the same class
as B, or whether it is included in or itself includes B, etc.
(b) To establish cognitive reference points, i.e., to determine whether
taxon A is a "good" example of a given category, or a better instance of cat-
egory membership than taxon B, etc.
(c) To define similarity between taxa, that is, to describe the relation-
ship between taxa in terms of degrees of similarity and dissimilarity, respec-
tively.
Each of these goals involves a different kind of reasoning, which we
354 BERND HEINE

may refer to, respectively, as discrete logic, prototype logic, and family
resemblance logic, and all three kinds of reasoning were constantly present
when our consultants described or defined their folk biological categories.
It would seem in fact that the relative extent to which these kinds of reason-
ing are employed in a given situation depends crucially on the relevant
nature of the "real world" phenomena considered. That Rosch and Mervis
(1975) observed a strong correlation between family resemblance and pro-
totype structures is to a large extent due to the fact that the categories cho-
sen by them were ones for which norms for the prototypicality of items had
already been obtained in previous research. 18 Categories having a pro-
nounced polycentric (or polysemous) structure, such as the one considered
in Section 2, do not figure in their sample.

6. Polygrammaticalization

In Section 2, the basic structure of a grammaticalization chain was dis-

cussed. No mention was made of the fact that such chains may be part of
other more complex structures, in particular, that they can involve poly­
grammaticalization, that is, that one and the same morpheme is the source
of more than one chain. Craig (1991), who has proposed this term, provides
an example involving the lexeme bang 'go' in Rama, a Chibchan language
spoken in Nicaragua. This lexeme has given rise to instances of gram-
maticalization within the argument-marking domain on the one hand, and
within the tense-aspect-modality domain on the other. The effects of poly-
grammaticalization may be illustrated by an example from Ewe, a Kwa lan-
guage of the Niger-Congo family spoken in eastern Ghana and southern
Togo. Like the Rama lexeme bang, the Ewe auxiliary le 'be at' has been
grammaticalized in two ways. On the one hand, it has given rise to a multi-
purpose preposition whose main function is to introduce adjuncts or
oblique case rôles. The verbal use of le is illustrated in (15), while (16) is an
example of its use as a preposition. 19
(15) Ewe
Kofí le agble-á me
Kofi be.at field-DEF in
'Kofi is in the garden'
(16) le ŋkeke atɔ me-é wó-wɔ e
PREP day five in-Foc 3.PL-do it
'within five days they completed it'
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 355

On the other hand, the auxiliary le has been employed in periphrastic

locative constructions which have developed into verbal aspect categories
(see Heine 1990), and it has assumed the function of a present progressive
and a present ingressive aspect marker, respectively, as example (17) illus­
trates. 20
(17) Ewe
Kofí le abólo du-m
Kofi PRES.PROG bread eat-PROG
'Kofi is eating bread'
A simplified schema of the grammaticalization of le is presented in Fig­
ure 3. As this figure suggests, polygrammaticalization does not pose a prob­
lem to the analysis of grammaticalization chains; it simply means that one
and the same source item may give rise to two, or even more, distinct
chains, i.e., that a given grammaticalization chain may be part of some
more complex chaining structure.

Figure 3. A polygrammaticalization chain of Ewe le 'be ať.

356 BERND HEINE

Polygrammaticalization can also be held responsible for another aspect

of language structure which has repeatedly been the subject of linguistic
controversies. A number of authors have drawn attention to the fact that
third person personal pronouns (or anaphoric pronouns) and definite arti-
cles have similar or identical forms in many languages and share one seman-
tic component, namely definiteness. This observation has given rise to the
claim that both are different exponents of a single underlying category.
Harris (1980: 75), for example, suggests that both should be regarded as
syntactically conditioned variants of one and the same underlying element.
Alternatively, it has been argued that personal pronouns derive from defi-
nite articles (Postal 1966) or, conversely, that definite articles derive from
pronouns (Sommerstein 1972).
Findings on grammaticalization suggest that there is an obvious expla-
nation for the relationship between the two: both tend to be derived from
demonstratives, typically from distal (remote) demonstratives, 21 and the
semantic and formal similarities between personal pronouns and definite
articles are the result of their common ancestry. Lyons, for example,
observes:
Looked at from a diachronic point of view, then, the definite article in
English is a demonstrative adjective uninflected for gender and number,
and the third-person personal pronouns are demonstrative pronouns, dis-
tinguished with respect to gender and number, but, like the definite arti-
cle, unmarked for proximity (Lyons 1977: 647).
Similar evidence from Indo-European and other languages is provided by
Greenberg (1978) and Harris (1980). Classical Latin, for example, is said to
have lacked clear instances of definite articles and third person pronouns.
In Vulgar Latin and Romance, the distal demonstrative set ille/illa/illud
came to function for both, and definiteness increasingly came to be overtly
marked by this set, while no distinction was made between definite articles
and third person pronouns. The two remained only minimally differen-
tiated in Spanish, but came to be formally distinguished in French.
The evolution from demonstratives to personal pronouns and definite
articles, respectively, is sketched in Figure 4. Note that Figure 4 accounts
for only one part of the relevant evolution; the fact that personal pronouns
tend to be further grammaticalized to anaphoric pronouns and agreement
markers, and definite articles to non-generic ("Stage II") articles (Green-
berg 1978; Givón 1979; Harris 1980) is not considered here. Furthermore,
Figure 4 is to be understood as an approximate schema; no specific claim is
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 357

intended concerning the number of conceivable intermediate members

between the demonstrative and the personal pronoun stage, or between the
demonstrative and the article stage; further research would be required on
this issue.
Like the polygrammaticalization structure of Figure 3, that of Figure 4
involves one source item giving rise to two distinct grammaticalization
chains, one extending from demonstrative to personal pronoun, and the
other from demonstrative to definite article. The process leading to the rise
of these chains can be described as one involving "bleaching": whereas the
demonstrative can be used both pronominally and adjectivally, the personal
pronoun cannot be employed adjectivally, and the definite article cannot be
used as a pronoun, that is, the latter two are "defective" vis-à-vis the
demonstrative (cf. Lyons 1977: 647). Furthermore, the spatial semantics of
the demonstrative is "bleached out" in the course of this process. 22
To conclude, the formal and semantic relationship between third per-
son personal pronouns and definite articles to be observed in a number of
languages can only be accounted for in a meaningful way with reference to
the following variables:
(a) their common (demonstrative) source,
(b) the fact that they belong to different grammaticalization chains, and
(c) their location along the respective grammaticalization chain: the closer
they are to their (demonstrative) source, the more likely they are to be con-

Figure 4. The polygrammaticalization chain leading from demonstratives to

personal pronouns and definite articles
358 BERND HEINE

ceived by the native speaker as belonging to one and the same linguistic cat-
egory. In the case of a more distant location, native speakers may no longer
be aware of any relationship between them and regard them as different
categories, as appears to be the case in English.

7. Polysemy

When a word has several related senses or meanings we call this an

instance of polysemy. Since the Charnus lexeme -yyéú discussed in Section
2 does not satisfy the condition of lack of "lexemic distinctiveness", which
tends to be regarded as a prerequisite for the presence of polysemy one
might prefer to treat -yyéú as an instance of heterosemy instead: this term
refers to the coexistence of multiple meanings all of which derive from a
common historical source, irrespective of the morphosyntactic status
associated with these meanings (cf. Persson 1988; Lichtenberk 1990).
Polysemy is considered to be a key notion in some recent theories of
semantic change (see Traugott 1986), and Sweetser (1990: 9) goes so far as
to argue that no historical shift of meaning can take place without an inter-
vening stage of polysemy. The question that now arises is: can gram-
maticalization chains also be treated as polysemous structures? On the basis
of orthodox definitions, this question has to be answered in the negative
since, according to standard definitions, polysemy requires:
(a) that there be two or more distinct but related senses,
(b) that these senses be associated with one linguistic form only, which typ-
ically, though not necessarily, is a lexical item, and
(c) that the linguistic form belongs to one and the same syntactic catego-
ry.23
As we saw in the previous sections, grammaticalization chains may cut
across syntactic categories and, hence, do not satisfy criterion (c). The
Charnus lexeme -yyéú, for example, has the status of a full verb on the one
hand, and that of an invariable grammatical particle on the other. Further-
more, grammaticalization is not confined to semantic development, it also
tends to involve a loss in the phonetic substance of the word concerned —
a process that has been described by Heine and Reh (1984) under the label
erosion. In such cases, (b) is not satisfied either (see below).
Finally, there is also reason to suggest that criterion (a) is not fulfilled
either. For example, in the -yyéú chain discussed in Section 2, five members
were distinguished. This does not mean, however, that we are dealing with
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 359

five distinct senses in that chain. Conceivably, many more members or

senses could be distinguished if more parameters had been used. In fact,
rather than looking for distinct senses along that chain, one could just as
well treat that chain as a conceptual continuum.
To conclude, grammaticalization chains do not correspond to the trad-
itional notion of polysemy. That there are, nevertheless, reasons to extend
this term to grammaticalization chains, has been argued for by scholars
using a similar framework to the one adopted here. It has been suggested,
for example, that criterion (c) is irrelevant; in connection with the various
senses of English over, Brugman (1981; 1984) observes that this lexeme is
an instance of polysemy in spite of the fact that it has prepositional, adver-
bial, and derivational uses and, hence, is associated with different syntactic
categories. Similar claims have been made by other scholars working in the
same tradition: both the lexical networks of Norvig & Lakoff (1987) and the
radial categories of Lakoff (1987), which both resemble grammaticalization
chains in a number of ways, have been described as instances of polysemy
— in spite of the fact that they may violate the categoriality criterion (c).
A similar position is adopted by Traugott (1986), who rejects (c) and
demonstrates that "admitting polysemy in semantic theory has the added
methodological advantage of allowing us to do extensive internal semantic
reconstruction" (Traugott 1986: 539).
That criterion (b) is dispensible as well, and that an extended defini-
tion of the term polysemy is required is argued for by Emanatian (1992). In
her discussion on the development of the verbs of motion -cha 'come from'
and -enda 'go to' to future markers in Chaga, a Bantu language spoken in
Tanzania, she concludes that this example of grammaticalization is also an
instance of polysemy, in spite of the fact that there are two different forms
associated with these lexemes, which are -che- and -nde-, respectively.
First of all, there are the two related meanings of -nde- and of -che-; this
we recognize as canonical polysemy. Then there is -enda as against -nde-,
and -cha as against -che-. Here we have a lexical verb and its reduced form
both having motion meanings, but only the latter having a metaphorical
meaning. In addition, the forms themselves differ slightly from each other,
while best examples of polysemy are of identical forms with multiple
meanings (Haiman 1978, 1985). Futhermore we have a budding difference
in categoriality, the reduced forms moving toward the status of grammati-
cal inflection. Should the term "polysemous" be applied in such a case? I
think, yes (Emanatian 1992: 18).
360 BERND HEINE

Thus, while there may be reasons for retaining the above set of criteria
for "canonical" instances of polysemy, there are also advantages in defining
polysemy with reference to general principles of grammaticalization
(Lehmann 1982; Heine & Reh 1984; Bybee & Pagliuca 1985; Heine, Claudi
& Hünnemeyer 1991a) and extending the use of the term polysemy to
grammaticalization chains like the one discussed in Section 2. This would
not only account for semantic variation but also for variation in the mor-
phosyntactic behavior and in the phonological shape of the words con-
cerned, as well as for the fact that semantic and morphosyntactic related-
ness in polysemy have both a synchronic and a diachronic dimension.
Note, however, that these observations are not of any help in deciding
where the boundary between polysemy and homonymy is to be located.
This problem would seem to require a different kind of approach, one that
takes, e.g., native speakers' intuitions on linguistic relatedness into consid-
eration.

8. Conclusions

The observations made in the preceding sections are at variance with

some of the assumptions underlying most previous linguistic treatments (cf.
Section 1). They suggest in particular that an analysis of certain structures
in terms of discontinuous categories, discrete constituent levels and word
classes, and in terms of a rigid distinction between a diachronic and a syn-
chronic perspective is likely to miss certain insights into the nature of lin-
guistic categorization.
The notion of a categorial continuum is far from new in linguistic
studies. One might think, for example, of the category space proposed by
Ross (1972), according to which the distinction between verbs, adjectives
and nouns is one of degree, rather than of kind, of Hopper and Thompson's
(1984) notion of de-categorialization, of the linguistic continua proposed
within the Cologne project on language universals (Seiler 1985; 1986), or of
Sugamoto's (1989) noun-pronoun continuum. What distinguishes these
continua from grammaticalization chains is essentially the fact that whereas
the latter are concerned exclusively with different uses of one and the same
linguistic unit, the former have to do with comparisons between different
lexical, morphosyntactic, or morphophonological entities. The characteris-
tics of grammaticalization chains can be summarized in terms of two major
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 361

parameters, which are (i) degree of grammaticalization and (ii) conceptual

relationship:

(i) Grammaticalization chains are linear structures having the follow-

ing characteristics:
(a) They can be defined with reference to their endpoints. These
endpoints differ from one another in their relative degree of gram-
maticalization, in that the final member of such a chain is a gram-
maticalized form of the initial member.
(b) Any member along this chain can be defined with reference to these
endpoints: the nearer a member is to the initial member, the less gram-
maticalized it is.
(c) Different members along this chain can also be defined with reference
to one another: a member to the left is less grammaticalized than any
one to its right, and the closer the two members are to each other, the
less they differ in their relative degree of grammaticalization, and the
more similar they are in meaning.
(ii) Grammaticalization chains have the characteristics of polythetic
classes which can be described as family resemblance categories.

As was mentioned above (Section 4), family resemblance does not pro-
vide an explanatory parameter for grammaticalization, rather it is an out-
come of grammaticalization, which itself is the result of an interplay of cog-
nitive and pragmatic forces leading to chain-like structures such as the one
sketched in Section 2 (see Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991a).
There are a number of questions that have not been addressed in the
present paper. One of them concerns the conceptual nature of gram-
maticalization chains. For example, is Stage V of the -yyéú chain a concep-
tually impoverished version of Stage I, as proponents of the "bleaching
model" would argue (cf., e.g., Bybee & Pagliuca 1985), or can the develop-
ment from Stage I to V be described in terms of a "loss-and-gain model"
instead (Sweetser 1988)? Recent research suggests that while the latter
model provides a more appropriate account of grammaticalization than the
former (Heine 1991), the answer is more complex and requires a separate
treatment.
362 BERND HEINE

Author's address:

Bernd Heine
Institut für Afrikanistik
Universität zu Köln
D 5000 Köln 41
Germany

NOTES

* I wish to express my gratitude to Eithne Carlin, Ulrike Claudi, Colette Craig, Suzanne
Fleischman, Spike Gildea, Tom Givón, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Friederike Hünnemeyer,
Christa König, Andreas Lessau, Thomas Miiller-Bardey, Franz Potyka, Hans-Jürgen
Sasse, and Fritz Serzisko for valuable comments on an earlier version of the present
paper. I also wish to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschafi (German Research
Society), especially Frau Ursula Far-Hollender, for having sponsored the research on
which this paper is based.
1. In this paper the following abbreviations have been used:
ABS - absolutive case; F - feminine gender; INF - infinitive; M - masculine gender; NAR
- narrative tense; NEG - negation marker; NOM - nominative case; PAST - past tense;
PFV - perfective; PL - plural; QU - question; REFL - reflexive; SG - singular; 1 - first
person; 2 - second person; 3 - third person.
2. Concerning the distinction between "grammaticalization chains" and "channels of gram-
maticalization", see Heine, Claudi & Hiinnemeyer 1991a: Ch. 8.4.
3. Concerning the relation between cognitive and linguistic processes involved in categoriza-
tion, see Corrigan (1989).
4. The following tonemes are distinguished, which have both a lexical and a grammatical
function: high (e.g., á), low (a), and falling (a).
5. The function of the k- prefix in 1st and 3rd person verb forms in Charnus and other Maa
dialects is unclear. Its use in Charnus, though not in the Maasai dialect, is obligatory in
the imperfective and optional in the progressive and perfective aspects. The feminine (F)
gender prefix n- has the allomorphs m- before bilabial consonants and ŋ- before velar
consonants.
6. When -yyéú is followed by a verb, the latter is obligatorily in the "narrative tense".
7. It is possible to place the subject noun phrase sentence-initially, but in this case, the verb
is introduced in the form of a relative clause.
8. Concerning the distinction focal vs. non-focal sense, see Heine, Claudi & Hiinnemeyer
(1991a: Ch. 4).
9. In these contexts, the form (k)éyyeu tends to be preferred to (k)eyyéú. Note that the
function as a negation marker is the result of a specific invited inference which has not yet
been conventionalized to a distinct sense or "polyseme".
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 363

10. See especially Givón (1973; 1975 1979), Stephany (1982), Lehmann (1982), Heine & Reh
(1984), Bybee & Pagliuca (1985), Traugott & Heine (1991), Heine, Claudi & Hün-
nemeyer (1991a).
11. In Croft's treatment adjectives are considered in addition to nouns and verbs, and in addi-
tion to their discourse function, he is also concerned with their syntactic and semantic
functions.
12. Markings for number, gender, case, definiteness, etc., are said to be characteristic of
nouns, while markings for tense/aspect, modality, agreement, or the ability to take sub-
jects and objects, are said to be characteristic of verbs (cf. Croft 1984: 59-60; Hopper &
Thompson 1984; 1985).
13. Cf. Taylor (1988; 1989), who provides the following characterization of such categories,
involving the grammaticalization of adpositions: 'Tor each preposition, we recognize a
central, or prototypical sense. The prototypical sense, rather than being highly general,
may well profile a very specific configuration. Polysemy comes about when the preposi-
tion is used in a sense which is closely related to, but distinct from, the prototypical
instance. For example: a condition which is essential to the prototype might not be met;
a feature which is optional to the prototype now assumes central importance, or vice
versa; or some additional feature might be required. By the same process, this derived
meaning may in turn give rise to a further extension, and so on. The various senses of the
word thus radiate out from the central prototype, like the spokes of a wheel. Senses at the
periphery might well have little in common, either with each other, or with the central
sense; they are merely related by virtue of the intervening members of the meaning
chain" (Taylor 1988: 301).
14. This observation in itself may not be revealing, since our focus in the analysis was on dis-
tinguishing, rather than on identical, features between the various members.
15. One characteristic, namely that none of the stages combines all the attributes distin-
guished, applies only to extended chains such as the one presented above, but does not
apply to nuclear chains such as the one presented in Table 3, which have only three
stages.
16. Concerning the distinction macrostructure vs. microstructure, see Heine, Claudi & Hün-
nemeyer (1991a: Chapter 4).
17. "Family resemblances (even broadly defined) are undoubtedly not the only principle of
prototype formation — for example, the frequency of items and the salience of particular
attributes or particular members of the categories (perceptual, social, or memorial sali-
ence) as well as the as yet undefined gestalt properties of stimuli and stimulus combina-
tions, undoubtedly contribute to prototype formation ..." (Rosch & Mervis 1975: 599).
18. These categories include superordinates (furniture, vehicle, fruit, weapon, vegetable, and
clothing), basic-level categories (e.g., chair, car), or artificial categories consisting of
strings of letters (e.g., HPNWD, JXPHM).
19. For more details, see Westermann (1907), Hünnemeyer (1985). That le in (16) is not a
verb is suggested, inter alia, by the fact that verbs may not occur sentence-initially except
in singular imperative forms.
20. For more details, see Heine (1990).
21. Note that in many languages, including English (cf. Lyons 1977: 647), the distal
demonstrative ('that') is the unmarked member of the demonstrative paradigm.
364 BERND HEINE

22. As has been pointed out by Sweetser (1988) and Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991a:
Ch. 4), however, in addition to the losses involved in this process, there are also gains, in
that, e.g., the loss of spatial semantics is compensated for by gains in text pragmatic sig-
nificance.
23. Criterion (c) tends to be implied rather than explicitly expressed in definitions of
polysemy (cf. Lyons 1977: 555).

REFERENCES

Altmann, G. 1972. "Zur linguistischen Unbestimmtheit". Linguïstische

Berichte (Konstanz) 22: 74-79.
Brugman, Claudia. 1981. The story of "over". M.A. Thesis. University of
California, Berkeley.
Brugman, Claudia. 1984. "The very idea: a case study in polysemy and
cross-lexical generalization". Chicago Linguistic Society, Parasession on
Lexical Semantics, 21-38.
Bybee, Joan L.; and Pagliuca, William. 1985. "Cross linguistic comparison
and the development of grammatical meaning". In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.)
1985. 59-83.
Claudi, Ulrike; and Heine, Bernd. 1986. "On the metaphorical base of
grammar". Studies in Languages 10,2: 297-335.
Corrigan, Roberta. 1989. "Introduction: Linguistic and non-linguistic
categorization: Structure and process". In: Corrigan, Roberta; Eckman,
Fred; and Noonan, Michael. (eds), 1-28.
Corrigan, Roberta; Eckman, Fred; and Noonan, Michael. (eds). 1989. Lin­
guistic categorization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 61]
Craig, Colette G. 1991. "Ways to go in Rama: a case study in polygram-
maticalization". In: Traugott, Elizabeth C ; and Heine, Bernd (eds), II,
455-492.
Croft, William. 1984. "Semantic and pragmatic correlates to syntactic
categories". In: Testen, David et al. (eds), 53-70.
Doke, Clement M.; and Mofokeng, S.M. [1957] 1985. Textbook of South­
ern Sotho grammar. Second edition. Cape Town: Maskew Miller
Longman.
Emanatian, Michele. 1992. "Chagga 'come' and 'go': metaphor and the
development of tense-aspect". Studies in Language 16.1: 1-33.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 365

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.). 1985. Historical semantics, historical word formation.

The Hague: Mouton.
Givón, Talmy. 1973. "The time-axis phenomenon". Language 49,4: 890-
925.
Givón, Talmy. 1975. "Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo". In:
Li (ed.), 47-112.
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York/San Francisco/
London: Academic Press.
Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, code and context: essays in pragmatics. Hill-
sdale/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. "How does a language acquire gender mar-
kers?" In: Greenberg, J.H. (ed.), 47-82.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) 1978. Universals of human language. Volume
3: Word structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Haiman, John. 1978. "A study in polysemy". Studies in Language 2,1: 1-34.
Haiman, John. 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. [Typological Studies in Language, 6]
Halliday, M.A.K. 1961. "Categories of the Theory of Grammar". Word
17,3: 241-292.
Harris, Martin B. 1980. "The marking of definiteness: a diachronic perspec-
tive". In: Traugott, E.C., Labrum, R.; and Shepherd, R. (eds), 75-86.
Hawkins, B. 1988. "The natural category MEDIUM: An alternative to
selection restrictions and similar constructs". In: Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
(ed.), 231-270.
Heine, Bernd. 1990. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter.
Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Linguistics Symposium on
"Explanation in Historical Linguistics", University of Wisconsin — Mil-
waukee, 1990.
Heine, Bernd. Forthc. Auxiliaries. New York: Oxford University Press (in
print).
Heine, Bernd; and Brenzinger, Matthias. 1988. Plant concepts and plant
use. Part IV: Plants of the Borana (Ethiopia and Kenya). Saarbrücken/
Fort Lauderdale: Breitenbach Publishers.
Heine, Bernd; and Claudi, Ulrike. 1986. On the rise of grammatical
categories. Some examples from Maa. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
[Kölner Beitrage zur Afrikanistik, 13]
Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike; and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991a. Gram­
maticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
366 BERND HEINE

Heine, Bernd; Claudi, Ulrike; and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991b. "From

cognition to grammar: Evidence from African languages". In: Traugott,
E.C.; and Heine, B. (eds) 1991, I, 149-187.
Heine, Bernd; and Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and
reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Hockett, Charles. 1955. A manual of phonology. Baltimore.
Hoffmann, Carl. 1963. A grammar of the Margi language. London: Oxford
University Press.
Hopper, Paul J.; and Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. "The discourse basis for
lexical categories in universal grammar". Language 60: 703-752.
Hopper, Paul J.; and Thompson, Sandra A. 1985. "The iconicity of the uni-
versal categories 'noun' and 'verb'". In: Haiman, John (ed.), 151-183.
Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1985. Die serielle Verbkonstruktion im Ewe: Eine
Bestandsaufnahrne und Beschreibung der Veränderungstendenzen funk-
tional-spezialisierter Serialisierungen. M. A. Thesis, Universität zu Köln.
Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl; and Zettersten, Arne (ed.). 1988. Proceedings of
the Third International Symposium on Lexicography, May 14-16, 1986,
at the University of Copenhagen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Jacobs, J.; and Vennemann, Theo (eds). forthc. Syntax. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter. [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswis-
senschaft]
Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. Harper International Edition. New
York: Harper & Row.
Kölver, Ulrike. 1984. "Local prepositions and serial verb constructions in
Thai". AKUP 56. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität
zu Köln. [Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts, 56]
Lakoff, George. 1982. "Categories and cognitive models". Berkeley Cogni­
tive Science Report No. 2, Institute for Human Learning. University of
California at Berkeley. (Reproduced by L.A.U.T. (Linguistic Agency,
University of Trier) Series A. Paper No. 96).
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories
reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization. A programma­
tic sketch. Volume 1. Cologne: University of Cologne, Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft. [AKUP, 48]
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1975. Word order and word order change. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
 GRAMMATICALIZATION CHAINS 367

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1990. Semantic change and heterosemy in gram-

maticalization: developments of the verbs 'go', 'come', and 'return' in
Oceanic languages. Unpublished paper, University of Auckland,
Department of Anthropology.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Matisoff, James. 1991. "Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticaliza-
tion in Lahu". In: Traugott, Elizabeth C ; and Heine, Bernd (eds), II.
383-453.
Matlin, Margaret W. Cognition. Second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc.
Medin, Douglas L.; Wattenmaker, William D.; and Hampson, Sarah E.
1987. "Family resemblances, conceptual cohesiveness, and category con-
struction". Cognitive Psychology 19: 242-279.
Norvig, Peter; and Lakoff, George. 1987. "Taking: a study in lexical net-
work theory". Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 195-206.
Persson, Gunnar. 1988. "Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy. The types
of lexical ambiguity in English". In: Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl; and Zet-
tersten, Arne (eds), 269-280.
Postal, Paul M. 1966. "On the so-called 'pronouns' in English". Monograph
Series on Language and Linguistics, 19. Ed. by F.P. Dinneen.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. "Natural categories". Cognitive Psychology. 43:
328-350.
Rosch, Eleanor H.; and Lloyd, B.B. (eds). 1978. Cognition and categoriza­
tion. Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Rosch, Eleanor H.; Mervis, C.B. 1975. "Family resemblances: Studies in
the internal structure of categories". Cognitive Psychology 7: 573-605.
Ross, John Robert. 1972. "The category squish: Endstation Hauptword".
Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS)
8: 316-328.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.). 1988. Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins. [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 50]
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. forthc. "Syntactic categories and subcategories". In:
Jacobs, J.; and Vennemann, Theo (eds).
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1985. "Linguistic continua, their properties, and their
interpretation". In: Seiler, Hansjakob; and Brettschneider, Gunter
(eds), 14-24.
368 BERND HEINE

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1986. Apprehension. Language, object, and order. Part

III: The universal dimension of apprehension. Tübingen: Gunter Narr
Verlag.
Seiler, Hansjakob; and Brettschneider, Gunter (eds). 1985. Language
invariants and mental operations. International Interdisciplinary Confer-
ence held at Gummersbach/Cologne, Germany, September 18-23, 1983.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. [Language Universals Series, 5]
Sommerstein, Alan. 1972. "On the so-called definite article in English".
Linguistic Inquiry 3: 197-209.
Stephany, Ursula. 1982. "From verb to functional element: degrees of
grammaticalization of verbs". Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meet-
ing of the SLE, Athens, September 8-11, 1982.
Sugamoto, Nobuko. 1989. "Pronominality: a noun-pronoun continuum". In:
Corrigan, Roberta; Eckman, Fred; and Noonan, Michael (eds), 267-291.
Sweetser, Eve Eliot. 1988. "Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching".
Berkeley Linguistics Society 14 (1988): 389-405.
Sweetser, Eve Eliot. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical
and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge/New York/Port
Chester/Melbourne/Sydney: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, John R. 1988. "Contrasting prepositional categories: English and
Italian". In: Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), 299-326.
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic
theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Testen, David; Mishra, Veena; and Drogo, Joseph (eds). 1984. Papers
from the Parasession on lexical semantics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1986. "From polysemy to internal semantic recon-
struction". Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 539-550.
Traugott, Elizabeth C ; and Heine, Bernd (eds). 1991. Approaches to gram­
maticalization. 2 volumes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth C ; Labrum, Rebecca; and Shepherd, Susan (eds).
1980. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguis­
tics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ward, T.B.; and Scott, J. 1987. "Analytic and holistic models of learning
family-resemblance concepts". Memory and Cognition 15: 42-54.
Westermann, Diedrich. 1907. Grammatik der Ewe-Sprache. Berlin: Diet-
rich Reimer.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. New York: Mac-
millan.