1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Belgian Journal of Linguistics
  4. Volume 30, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

While recent years have seen an increased interest for the potential effects of language contact on the formal and/or semantic properties of constructions, existing case studies of (potentially) contact-induced change in individual constructions (e.g. Pietsch 2010 ; Höder 2012 , 2014 ; Van de Velde and Zenner 2010 ; Colleman and Noël 2014 , etc.) have so far made little impact on the booming field of diachronic construction grammar at large, i.e. they have stayed largely under the radar of constructionist theorizing about language change. The present paper reflects on the theoretical significance of a recent innovation in Dutch, viz. the emergence of an argument structure construction that mirrors the form and semantics of the English ‘time’- construction first described in Jacken-doff (1997) . While it is fairly uncontroversial that English influence has to do with this innovation, it is by no means easy to determine exactly what has happened. Even though an alternative scenario, in which the new Dutch pattern developed out of pre-existing Dutch pattern featuring ‘away’, cannot be ruled out, I will argue that one plausible way of accounting for the observed facts is to assume that a ready-made English form-meaning unit was copied into Dutch. On this view, the observed change would count as an instance of instantaneous grammatical constructionalization.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.05col
2016-12-19
2024-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.05col
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barðdal, Jóhanna , and Spike Gildea
    2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, Jóhanna , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea
    (eds) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boogaart, Ronny , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten
    2014 “Constructions all the Way Everywhere: Four New Directions in Constructionist Research.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , 1–14. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Booij, Geert
    2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cappelle, Bert
    2005 Particle Patterns in English: a Comprehensive Coverage. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leuven.
  6. Colleman, Timothy , and Dirk Noël
    2014 “Tracing the History of Deontic NCI Patterns in Dutch: A Case of Polysemy Copying.” InDiachronic Corpus Pragmatics, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen , Andreas H. Jucker , and Jukka Tuominen , 213–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.243.13col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.13col [Google Scholar]
  7. Colleman, Timothy
    . To appear. “Distributional Assimilation in Constructional Semantics: On Contact-related Semantic Shifts in Afrikaans Three-argument Constructions.” To appear inConstructions in Contact ed. by Hans Boas , and Steffen Höder . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dixon, R.M.W.
    2005 A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Doğruöz, Seza , and Ad Backus
    2009 “Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of On-going Contact Induced Change.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition12 (1): 41–63. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003441
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728908003441 [Google Scholar]
  10. Elenbaas, Marjon
    2007 The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-Particle Combination. Utrecht: LOT publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fried, Mirjam
    2009 “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames1 (2): 262–291. doi: 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  12. 2013 “Principles of Constructional Change.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 419–437. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. 2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Science7: 219–224. doi: 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, Stefan Th
    2008 “Phraseology and linguistic theory: a brief survey.” InPhraseology: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Sylviane Granger , and Fanny Meunier , 3–25. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.139.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  17. Grondelaers, Stefan , Katrien Deygers , Hilde van Aken , Vicky Van den Heede , and Dirk Speelman
    2000 “Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV corpus of written Dutch].” Nederlandse Taalkunde5: 356–363.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Heine, Bernd , and Tania Kuteva
    2005 Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511614132
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hilpert, Martin
    2013 Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  20. Höder, Steffen
    2012 “Multilingual Constructions: a Diasystematic Approach to Common Structures.” InMultilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller , and Christoph Gabriel , 241–257. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hsm.13.17hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.13.17hod [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 “Constructing Diasystems: Grammatical Organisation in Bilingual Groups”. InThe Sociolinguistics of Grammar, ed. by Tor A. Åfarli , and Britt Mæhlum , 137–152. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.154.07hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.154.07hod [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, Ray
    1997 “Twistin’ the Night Away.” Language73: 534–559. doi: 10.2307/415883
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013 “Constructions in the Parallel Architecture.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 70–92. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Matras, Yaron , and Jeanette Sakel
    2007 “Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern-Replication.” Studies in Language31: 829–865. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat [Google Scholar]
  25. McIntyre, Andrew
    2003 “Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics: German Prefixes and Particles.” InYearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. by Geert Booij , and Jaap van Marle , 119–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑1513‑7_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-1513-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Noël, Dirk
    2007 “Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory.” Functions of Language14: 177–202. doi: 10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe [Google Scholar]
  27. Pietsch, Lukas
    2010 “What has Changed in Hiberno-English: Constructions and Their Role in Contact-induced Change.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung63: 118–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2008a “The Grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns.” InConstructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs , and Gabriele Diewald , 23–45. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 2008b “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Incremental Development of Language: Suggestions from the Development of Degree Modifiers in English.” InVariation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, ed. by Regine Eckhardt , Gerhard Jäger , and Tonjes Veenstra , 219–250. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 “Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical Constructionalization.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.02tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.02tra [Google Scholar]
  31. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 “Contentful constructionalization.” Journal of Historical Linguistics4: 256–283. doi: 10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra [Google Scholar]
  33. Trousdale, Graeme
    2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language37: 491–514. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro [Google Scholar]
  34. 2014 “On the Relationship between Grammaticalization and Constructionalization.” Folia Linguistica48: 557–578. doi: 10.1515/flin.2014.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.018 [Google Scholar]
  35. Van de Velde, Freek , Hendrik De Smet , and Lobke Ghesquière
    2013 “On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change.” Studies in Language37: 473–489. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.01int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int [Google Scholar]
  36. Van de Velde, Freek , and Eline Zenner
    2010 “Pimp my Lexis: het nut van corpusonderzoek in normatief taaladvies [Pimp my lexis: the use of corpus research in normative language advice].” InLiever meer of juist minder? Over normen en variatie in taal [Preferably more or rather less? On norms and variation in language], ed. by Els Hendrickx , Karl Hendrickx , Willy Martin , Hans Smessaert , William Van Belle , and Joop van der Horst , 51–68. Gent: Academia press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Verhagen, Arie
    2007 “English Constructions from a Dutch Perspective: Where Are the Differences?” InStructural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, ed. by Mike Hannay , and Gerard J. Steen , 257–274. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.83.15ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.15ver [Google Scholar]
  38. Weinreich, Uriel
    1953 [1964] Languages in Contact. Second edition. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. WNT = De Vries, M. , L.A. Te Winkel et al. (ed.) (1882–1998) Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Dictionary of the Dutch Language]. Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff etc.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.05col
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error