Semantic Subjectification In The Process Of Grammaticalization

With the development of functional linguistics, pragmatics and cognitive grammar in the late 1980s, some linguistics began to study subjectification. They hold that language is not strictly as form nor as the expression of prepositional thought and is not as autonomous structure nor as representing logical propositions, but is as an expression—an incarnation, even—of perceiving, feeling, speaking subjects.In current linguistic theory, the most prominent exponents of subjectivity are probably Langacker and Traugott who have elaborated this notion and extended it to subjectification according to the premises of their respective theoretical frameworks. Langacker takes a synchronic approach within the framework of cognitive grammar, equating meaning with conceptualization (1985:109) while Traugott (1989), using Lyons'characterisation of subjectivity, takes a diachronic perspective, coupling subjectification and grammaticalization.This study will mainly follow Traugott's broad sense of subjectification in the process of grammaticalization. We hold that subjectification can be regarded as one of important mechanisms of grammaticalization. And in the process of semantic change, subjectification can operate along several dimensions, which involves from prepositional function to discourse function, from objective meaning to subjective meaning, from non-epistemic modality to epistemic modality, from non-syntactic subject to syntactic subject, from syntactic subject to speaking subject, from full and free form to bonded form. On the other hand, we believe that there are some convergences between the two different perspective approaches, which are of great help in the study of subjectification. The two linguists study the same phenomenon in language only from different perspectives. Both synchronic and diachronic approaches lay a good foundation for the study of subjectification and provide theoretical reference to cross-linguistic study of subjectification. Based on the previous research in subjectification, this thesis investigates the phenomena of subjectification in the process of grammaticalization in both English and Chinese.This thesis consists of four parts.Chapter One is a brief introduction about the recent studies on subjectivity and subjectification. And it points out that studies on subjectification have received little attention among linguists, especially linguists at home. The present study is carried out focusing on semantic subjectification in the process of grammaticalization.Chapter Two mainly discusses subjectification and grammaticalization. First it describes the relationship between subjectification and grammaticalization. And then there is a survey of grammaticalization, involving the definition, topics, some important properties and mechanisms of grammaticalization. This discussion will be of some help in the later parts. Finally detailed discussion is given to subjectivity and subjectification. Subjectification is a synchronic concept as well as a diachronic one. There are two major approaches to subjectification. One is Langacker's synchronic perspective; the other is Traugott's diachronic perspective. This study mainly follows the latter, but at the same time points out the two approaches are both useful in the studies of subjectification. There are three main arenas that have been the focus of recent studies of subjectivity and subjectification. Finally this part puts forward that semantic subjectification is the result of the interaction of human cognition and language use, during which pragmatic inference plays a very important role. Chapter Three is the case studies, which involve semantic subjectification in both English and Chinese grammaticalization in terms of modals, verb construction and adjectives. Examples are investigated to show how these kinds of lexicon evolve from objective to subjective, or from less subjective to more subjective.Chapter Four is the conclusion of the study. In this part, the retrospect of this thesis is given first. And the author draws a conclusion, at the same time significance and limitation of the present study are also pointed out.