It has been argued that the development of the Swedish possessive - s constitutes an example of degrammaticalisation because it has changed from being an affix to being a clitic (Norde 1997; 2001a, b). I argue that a simple distinction between affix and clitic cannot capture the development of this element, instead a distinction in two dimensions need to be made; PLACEMENT needs to be distinguished from DEGREE OF ATTACHMENT . Furthermore, I claim that the distinction between agreement and once only marking represents yet another dimension. With respect to the Swedish possessive, as Norde (1997) shows, there has been a clear change from agreement to once only marking; however, I argue that this change does not tell us anything about the element's morphological status. With respect to placement, - s is still subject to competing constraints and with respect to attachment, there is some evidence of morphological interaction between the - s and the word to which it attaches. It is then inappropriate to call the Swedish possessive -s a clitic and to refer to the change which it has undergone as degrammaticalisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kersti Börjars (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: