{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029069767441860465, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004651162790697674, 'mean_word_length': 5.377777777777778, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reconciling older and newer approaches to grammaticalization

Abstract The grammaticalization literature has seen three different strands of grammaticalization research: research inspired (i) by Lehmann’s unidirectional reduction view, in which a grammaticalizing item loses integrity and becomes increasingly dependent; (ii) by Himmelmann’s context-expansion view; and (iii) research that is integrated into a construction grammar approach to language. With each (new) domain of inquiry seems to have come a distinct set of criteria. This may create the impression that grammaticalization simply adjusts its criteria - in an ad-hoc fashion - to the domain at hand. Informed by the discussion in Traugott and Trousdale (2013), I argue in this paper that what look like distinct sets of grammaticalization criteria may not be as distinct as first meets the eye.