1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Different Slants on Grammaticalization
  4. Chapter

Chapter 5. Could be, might be, maybe

Mechanisms of grammaticalization in synchronic use and perception

image of Chapter 5. Could be, might be, maybe

In grammaticalization, functional reanalysis and formal reduction are often regarded as elements of a unified diachronic process, though rooted in general communicative and cognitive preferences. The present study tests these claims in synchronic language use by investigating potential cases of grammaticalization. Epistemic phrases of the type (it) could/might be (that) in English are potential candidates for grammaticalizing into sentence adverb(ial)s. The question is whether shorter forms (here, it-omission) are preferred in potentially grammaticalizing contexts, e.g. modifying a main clause ((it) could be this is correct). I first summarize a corpus study, where overall higher rates of it-omission are found in critical context across items (could be, might be) and register (spoken, informal writing). A ‘continuous shadowing’ experiment partly confirms this finding but also shows that speakers/hearers are both more flexible and more conservative with could/might be than with maybe / it may be that. The findings suggest that grammaticalizing contexts have an immediate effect on formal reduction even in the absence of change, and that language users have an active intuition for emerging variational patterns.

  • Affiliations: 1: Universität Rostock

References

  1. Barth, Danielle
    2019 Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE. Linguistics Vanguard5(1): article nr. 20180055. 10.1515/lingvan‑2018‑0055
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0055 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beijering, Karin
    2010 The grammaticalization of Mainland Scandinavian MAYBE. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies1: 1–21. 10.15845/bells.v1i1.39
     https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v1i1.39 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 Semi-insubordinate at-constructions in Norwegian: Formal, semantic and functional properties. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift34: 161–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BNC Consortium
    2007 The British National Corpus. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries , University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
    2017 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.36. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bořil, Tomáš & Skarnitzl, Radek
    2016 Tools rPraat and mPraat. InText, Speech, and Dialogue, Petr Sojka , Aleš Horák , Ivan Kopeček & Karel Pala (eds), 367–374. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑45510‑5_42
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45510-5_42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
    2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language88(1): 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  8. Breban, Tine
    2014 What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica48(2): 469–502. 10.1515/flin.2014.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.016 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.) 145–167. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, Joan L. , Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William
    1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Caines, Andrew
    2012 You talking to me? Corpus and experimental data on the zero auxiliary interrogative in British English. InFrequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, Stefan T. Gries & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 177–205. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274059.177
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.177 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, Marie Herget , Kristensen, Line Burholt , Vinther, Nicoline Munck & Boye, Kasper
    2021 Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition13(1): 128–153. 10.1017/langcog.2020.30
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.30 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, Peter
    2007  Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: A corpus-based account. World Englishes26(4): 474–491. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00523.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00523.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, William
    2010 The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics48(1): 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, Mark
    2013 Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE).  < www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/ > (15January 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Smet, Hendrik
    2016 How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change28: 83–102. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 Entrenchment effects in language change. InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.) 75–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
    2002 Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft21(2): 151–195. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  20. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  21. 2006 Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. InConstructions, SpecialVol. 1, Doris Schönefeld (ed.). 10.24338/cons‑443
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-443 [Google Scholar]
  22. Finger, Holger , Goeke, Caspar , Diekamp, Dorena , Standvoß, Kai & König, Peter
    2017  LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies. International Conference on Computational Social Science (Cologne).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, Olga
    2007 Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2010 On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope. InFormal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden , Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.94.02fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.94.02fis [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaeta, Livio
    2004 Exploring grammaticalization from below. InWhat makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang , Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gentens, Caroline , Kimps, Ditte , Davidse, Kristin , Jacobs, Gilles , Van linden, An & Brems, Lot
    2016 Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder . InOutside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck , Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.05gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.05gen [Google Scholar]
  27. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
    2009 Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5(1): 1–26. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics37(6): 1043–1068. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  29. Haspelmath, Martin
    2008 Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. InLinguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.) 185–214. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heine, Bernd
    1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003 Grammaticalization. InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Malden MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David
    2018 The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics22(3): 357–380. 10.1017/S1360674316000496
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000496 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoefler, Stefan H. & Smith, Andrew D. M.
    2009 The pre-linguistic basis of grammaticalization: A unified approach to metaphor and reanalysis. Studies in Language33(4): 886–909. 10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoe [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopper, Paul
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InApproaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  36. Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn.Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette
    2008 Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics34(2): 85–113. 10.1515/THLI.2008.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaatari, Henrik & Larsson, Tove
    2019 Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic development of I think and I’m sure . English Studies100(6): 710–727. 10.1080/0013838X.2018.1558702
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2018.1558702 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2021  Funny you should say that: On the use of semi-insubordination in English. Constructions and Frames13(1): 126–159. 10.1075/cf.00049.kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal [Google Scholar]
  40. Konvička, Martin
    2019 Paradigms, host classes, and ancillariness. InGrammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 277–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110682564‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682564-010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann, Christian
    2004 Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik32(2): 152–187. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015[1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn.Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 Grammaticalization and automation. JournaLIPP5: 33–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
    2014 From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like-parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics15(1): 66–91. 10.1075/jhp.15.1.03lop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.15.1.03lop [Google Scholar]
  45. López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén
    2016 From clause to adverb: On the history of maybe. InOutside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck , Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.) 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.06lop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.06lop [Google Scholar]
  46. Lorenz, David
    2012 The perception of gonna and gotta – A study of emancipation in progress. In Proceedings of the 5th ISEL conference ExLing 2012 , 27–29 August 2012, Athens, Greece, Antonis Botinis (ed.) 77–80. Athens: ISEL Editions.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lorenz, David
    . Forthcoming. Could be it’s grammaticalization: Usage patterns of the epistemic phrases (it) could/might be. To appear inJournal of English Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David
    2020 Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. InRe-Assessing Modalising Expressions. Categories, Co-text, and Context [Studies in Language Companion Series 216], Pascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds), 79–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.216.04lor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.04lor [Google Scholar]
  49. Love, Robbie , Dembry, Claire , Hardie, Andrew , Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony
    2017 The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(3): 319–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey
    2006 Current changes in English syntax. InThe Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh, Alan
    1978 Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology10(1): 29–63. 10.1016/0010‑0285(78)90018‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-X [Google Scholar]
  52. Mélac, Eric
    2022 The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics26(2): 331–359. 10.1017/S1360674321000101
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000101 [Google Scholar]
  53. Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd
    2021 Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Norde, Muriel , Rawoens, Gudrun & Beijering, Karin
    2014 Från matrissats till satsadverb? En diakron studie av adverbet kanske.  < https://www.academia.edu/20378714/Från_matrissats_till_satsadverb_En_diakron_studie_av_adverbet_kanske > (28December 2022).
  55. Petré, Peter
    2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [BE going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics30: 115–146. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
  56. Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek
    2018 The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language94(4): 867–901. 10.1353/lan.2018.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0056 [Google Scholar]
  57. R Core Team
    2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. | < https://www.R-project.org/ > (28December 2022).
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide
    1998 Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. InAdverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds), 187–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802610.187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.187 [Google Scholar]
  59. Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony
    1991 A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. InApproaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  60. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2002 From etymology to historical pragmatics. InStudies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197143.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197143.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.) 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  62. Usonienė, Aurelia & Šolienė, Audrone
    2012 Choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuanian: A corpus-based study. InCorpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics 43], Stefania Marzo , Kris Heylen & Gert De Sutter (eds.) 141–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.43.07uso
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.43.07uso [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Bogaert, Julie
    2011  I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics49(2). 295–332. 10.1515/ling.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wiemer, Björn
    2014 Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica48(2): 425–467. 10.1515/flin.2014.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.015 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Barth, Danielle
    2019 Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE. Linguistics Vanguard5(1): article nr. 20180055. 10.1515/lingvan‑2018‑0055
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0055 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beijering, Karin
    2010 The grammaticalization of Mainland Scandinavian MAYBE. Bergen Language and Linguistics Studies1: 1–21. 10.15845/bells.v1i1.39
     https://doi.org/10.15845/bells.v1i1.39 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2016 Semi-insubordinate at-constructions in Norwegian: Formal, semantic and functional properties. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift34: 161–182.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BNC Consortium
    2007 The British National Corpus. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries , University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David
    2017 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.36. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bořil, Tomáš & Skarnitzl, Radek
    2016 Tools rPraat and mPraat. InText, Speech, and Dialogue, Petr Sojka , Aleš Horák , Ivan Kopeček & Karel Pala (eds), 367–374. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑45510‑5_42
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45510-5_42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
    2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language88(1): 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  8. Breban, Tine
    2014 What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica48(2): 469–502. 10.1515/flin.2014.016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.016 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.) 145–167. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, Joan L. , Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William
    1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Caines, Andrew
    2012 You talking to me? Corpus and experimental data on the zero auxiliary interrogative in British English. InFrequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, Stefan T. Gries & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 177–205. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274059.177
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.177 [Google Scholar]
  13. Christensen, Marie Herget , Kristensen, Line Burholt , Vinther, Nicoline Munck & Boye, Kasper
    2021 Grammar is background in sentence processing. Language and Cognition13(1): 128–153. 10.1017/langcog.2020.30
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.30 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, Peter
    2007  Can/could and may/might in British, American and Australian English: A corpus-based account. World Englishes26(4): 474–491. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.2007.00523.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00523.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Croft, William
    2010 The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics48(1): 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Davies, Mark
    2013 Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE).  < www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/ > (15January 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  17. De Smet, Hendrik
    2016 How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change28: 83–102. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2018 Entrenchment effects in language change. InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.) 75–100. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
    2002 Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft21(2): 151–195. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  20. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  21. 2006 Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. InConstructions, SpecialVol. 1, Doris Schönefeld (ed.). 10.24338/cons‑443
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-443 [Google Scholar]
  22. Finger, Holger , Goeke, Caspar , Diekamp, Dorena , Standvoß, Kai & König, Peter
    2017  LabVanced: A unified JavaScript framework for online studies. International Conference on Computational Social Science (Cologne).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, Olga
    2007 Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 2010 On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope. InFormal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden , Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.94.02fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.94.02fis [Google Scholar]
  25. Gaeta, Livio
    2004 Exploring grammaticalization from below. InWhat makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang , Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 45–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gentens, Caroline , Kimps, Ditte , Davidse, Kristin , Jacobs, Gilles , Van linden, An & Brems, Lot
    2016 Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder . InOutside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck , Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.05gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.05gen [Google Scholar]
  27. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan T.
    2009 Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5(1): 1–26. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics37(6): 1043–1068. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  29. Haspelmath, Martin
    2008 Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. InLinguistic Universals and Language Change, Jeff Good (ed.) 185–214. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heine, Bernd
    1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  32. 2003 Grammaticalization. InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Malden MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch18
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch18 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilpert, Martin & Correia Saavedra, David
    2018 The unidirectionality of semantic changes in grammaticalization: An experimental approach to the asymmetric priming hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics22(3): 357–380. 10.1017/S1360674316000496
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000496 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoefler, Stefan H. & Smith, Andrew D. M.
    2009 The pre-linguistic basis of grammaticalization: A unified approach to metaphor and reanalysis. Studies in Language33(4): 886–909. 10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoe [Google Scholar]
  35. Hopper, Paul
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InApproaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  36. Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd edn.Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette
    2008 Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics34(2): 85–113. 10.1515/THLI.2008.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaatari, Henrik & Larsson, Tove
    2019 Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to study the syntactic development of I think and I’m sure . English Studies100(6): 710–727. 10.1080/0013838X.2018.1558702
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2018.1558702 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2021  Funny you should say that: On the use of semi-insubordination in English. Constructions and Frames13(1): 126–159. 10.1075/cf.00049.kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00049.kal [Google Scholar]
  40. Konvička, Martin
    2019 Paradigms, host classes, and ancillariness. InGrammar – Discourse – Context: Grammar and Usage in Language Variation and Change, Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 277–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110682564‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110682564-010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann, Christian
    2004 Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik32(2): 152–187. 10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.2004.32.2.152 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2015[1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn.Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 Grammaticalization and automation. JournaLIPP5: 33–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
    2014 From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like-parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics15(1): 66–91. 10.1075/jhp.15.1.03lop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.15.1.03lop [Google Scholar]
  45. López-Couso, María José & Méndez-Naya, Belén
    2016 From clause to adverb: On the history of maybe. InOutside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck , Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.) 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.178.06lop
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.06lop [Google Scholar]
  46. Lorenz, David
    2012 The perception of gonna and gotta – A study of emancipation in progress. In Proceedings of the 5th ISEL conference ExLing 2012 , 27–29 August 2012, Athens, Greece, Antonis Botinis (ed.) 77–80. Athens: ISEL Editions.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lorenz, David
    . Forthcoming. Could be it’s grammaticalization: Usage patterns of the epistemic phrases (it) could/might be. To appear inJournal of English Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lorenz, David & Tizón-Couto, David
    2020 Not just frequency, not just modality: Production and perception of English semi-modals. InRe-Assessing Modalising Expressions. Categories, Co-text, and Context [Studies in Language Companion Series 216], Pascal Hohaus & Rainer Schulze (eds), 79–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.216.04lor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.216.04lor [Google Scholar]
  49. Love, Robbie , Dembry, Claire , Hardie, Andrew , Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony
    2017 The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22(3): 319–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey
    2006 Current changes in English syntax. InThe Handbook of English Linguistics, Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds), 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  51. Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Welsh, Alan
    1978 Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology10(1): 29–63. 10.1016/0010‑0285(78)90018‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-X [Google Scholar]
  52. Mélac, Eric
    2022 The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics26(2): 331–359. 10.1017/S1360674321000101
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000101 [Google Scholar]
  53. Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd
    2021 Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Norde, Muriel , Rawoens, Gudrun & Beijering, Karin
    2014 Från matrissats till satsadverb? En diakron studie av adverbet kanske.  < https://www.academia.edu/20378714/Från_matrissats_till_satsadverb_En_diakron_studie_av_adverbet_kanske > (28December 2022).
  55. Petré, Peter
    2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [BE going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics30: 115–146. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
  56. Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek
    2018 The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language94(4): 867–901. 10.1353/lan.2018.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0056 [Google Scholar]
  57. R Core Team
    2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. | < https://www.R-project.org/ > (28December 2022).
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide
    1998 Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. InAdverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall P. O. Baoill (eds), 187–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110802610.187
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.187 [Google Scholar]
  59. Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony
    1991 A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. InApproaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  60. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2002 From etymology to historical pragmatics. InStudies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 19–49. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197143.1.19
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197143.1.19 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.) 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  62. Usonienė, Aurelia & Šolienė, Audrone
    2012 Choice of strategies in realizations of epistemic possibility in English and Lithuanian: A corpus-based study. InCorpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics [Benjamins Current Topics 43], Stefania Marzo , Kris Heylen & Gert De Sutter (eds.) 141–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.43.07uso
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.43.07uso [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Bogaert, Julie
    2011  I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics49(2). 295–332. 10.1515/ling.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  64. Wiemer, Björn
    2014 Quo vadis grammaticalization theory?, or: Why complex language change is like words. Folia Linguistica48(2): 425–467. 10.1515/flin.2014.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.015 [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027252814-slcs.232.05lor
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027252814-slcs.232.05lor
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027252814
Book
false
Loading
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