1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This squib first sketches the state-of-the-art in diachronic construction grammar by tracing it back to two strands of research which it distinguishes as historical construction grammar and constructionist grammaticalization theory. It then differentiates between usage-based work in diachronic construction grammar that focuses on (frequency of) use and work that centres on knowledge. It is posited that, to arrive at truly (radically) usage-based models of change, one should separate individual knowledge, or internal systems/constructicons, from assumed-to-be-shared knowledge, or external systems/constructicons. Two us-age-based models of constructional change, “Traugott/Trousdale” and “Fischer”, are assessed against this criterion. While the former explicitly distinguishes between individual and “community” knowledge, it is judged to confuse these by assigning a central role to reanalysis/neoanalysis. The latter model revolves around the role of analogy and is less confined to a semasiological account of the linear developments dictated by an external outlook.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
2016-12-19
2018-12-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersen, Henning
    2001 “Actualization and the (Uni)directionality of Change.” InActualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, ed. by Henning Andersen , 225–248. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.219.11and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.219.11and [Google Scholar]
  2. Backus, Ad
    2014 “A Usage-based Approach to Borrowability.” InNew Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations, ed. by Eline Zenner , and Gitte Kristiansen , 19–39. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2015 “A Usage-based Approach to Code-switching: The Need for Reconciling Structure and Function.” InCode-switching between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Gerald Stell , and Kofi Yakpo , 19–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Backus, Ad , Seza Doğruöz , and Bernd Heine
    2011 “Salient Stages in Contact-induced Grammatical Change: Evidence from Synchronic vs. Diachronic Contact situations.” Language Sciences33 (5): 738–752. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2007 “The Semantic and Lexical Range of the Ditransitive Construction in the History of (North) Germanic.” Functions of Language14 (1): 9–30. doi: 10.1075/fol.14.1.03bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.03bar [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 “The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account.” Lingua121 (1): 60–79. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Barðdal, Jóhanna , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea
    (eds) 2015Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barlow, Michael
    2013 “Individual Differences and Usage-based Grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18 (4): 443–478. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar [Google Scholar]
  10. Barlow, Michael , and Suzanne Kemmer
    (eds) 2000Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergs, Alexander , and Gabriele Diewald
    2008 “Introduction: Constructions and Language Change.” InConstructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs , and Gabriele Diewald , 1–21. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110211757.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211757.1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bisang, Walter
    1998a “Grammaticalization and Language Contact, Constructions and Positions.” InThe Limits of Grammaticalization, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat , and Paul J. Hopper , 13–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.37.02bis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.37.02bis [Google Scholar]
  13. 1998b “Verb Serialization and Attractor Positions: Constructions and their Potential Impact on Language Change and Language Contact.” InTypology of Verbal Categories, ed. by Leonid Kulikov , and Heinz Vater , 254–271. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110913750.255
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913750.255 [Google Scholar]
  14. Börjars, Kersti , Nigel Vincent , and George Walkden
    2015 “On Constructing a Theory of Grammatical Change.” Transactions of the Philological Society113 (3): 363–382. doi: 10.1111/1467‑968X.12068
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12068 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bybee, Joan
    2003a “Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency.” InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph , and Richard D. Janda , 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2003b “Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization.” InThe New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Volume2, ed. by Michael Tomasello , 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Colleman, Timothy
    2011 “Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik59 (4): 387–410. doi: 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0408
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0408 [Google Scholar]
  20. Colleman, Timothy , and Bernard De Clerck
    2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics22 (1): 183–209. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  21. Colleman, Timothy , and Dirk Noël
    2012 “The Dutch Evidential NCI: A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics13 (1): 1–28. doi: 10.1075/jhp.13.1.01col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.1.01col [Google Scholar]
  22. 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.243.13col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.243.13col [Google Scholar]
  23. Croft, William
    2010 “The Origins of Grammaticalization in the Verbalization of Experience.” Linguistics48 (1): 1–48. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2012 “Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language Attainment.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism2 (3): 219–253. doi: 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
  25. David, Oana
    2015 “Clitic Doubling and Differential Object Marking: A Study in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames7 (1): 103–135. doi: 10.1075/cf.7.1.04dav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.1.04dav [Google Scholar]
  26. DeLancey, Scott
    1994 “Grammaticalization and Linguistic Theory.” InProceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages, ed. by Jule Gomez de Garcia , and David S. Rood , 1–22. Boulder: University of Colorado.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. De Smet, Hendrik
    2009 “Analysing Reanalysis.” Lingua119 (11): 1728–1755. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2012 “The Course of Actualization.” Language88 (3): 601–633. doi: 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016a “How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation.” Language Variation and Change28 (1): 83–102. doi: 10.1017/S0954394515000186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2016b “The Roots of Ruthless: Individual Variation as a Window on Mental Representation.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics21 (2):250–271. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.05des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.05des [Google Scholar]
  31. De Smet, Hendrik , Lobke Ghesquière , and Freek Van de Velde
    (eds) 2013On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Special issue of Studies in Language (37, 3).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Diessel, Holger
    2014 “Usage-based Linguistics.” Oxford Bibliographies. (www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0068.xml, last accessed on26 February 2016). doi: 10.1093/obo/9780199772810‑0068
    https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199772810-0068 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Fischer, Olga
    2007Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2008 “On Analogy as the Motivation for Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language32 (2): 336–382. doi: 10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.32.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 “An Analogical Approach to Grammaticalization.” InGrammaticalization: Current views and issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi , Elke Gehweiler , and Ekkehard König , 181–218. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.119.11fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.11fis [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 “An Inquiry into Unidirectionality as a Foundational Element of Grammaticalization: On the Role Played by Analogy and the Synchronic Grammar System in Processes of Language Change.” Studies in Language37 (3): 515–533. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.03fis [Google Scholar]
  38. 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]
  39. 2013 “Principles of Constructional Change.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1990 “Constructional Borrowing and the Process of Factorization.” Unpublished manuscript. (www.princeton.edu/~adele/papers/Papers/Finished/Yiddish.doc, last accessed on18 February 2016)
  41. Harris, Roy
    2007 “Integrational Linguistics.” InHandbook of Pragmatics: 2007 Installment, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman , Jef Verschueren , and Eline Versluys , 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heine, Bernd , Heiko Narrog , and Haiping Long
    2016 “Constructional Change vs. Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language40 (1): 137–175. doi: 10.1075/sl.40.1.05hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.05hei [Google Scholar]
  43. Hendery, Rachel
    2013 “Constructional Etymology: The Sources of Relative Clauses.” InLexical and Structural Etymology: Beyond Word Histories, ed. by Robert Mailhammer , 84–119. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9781614510581.83
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510581.83 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hilpert, Martin
    2013Constructional 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]
  45. Israel, Michael
    1996 “The way constructions grow.” InConceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele E. Goldberg , 217–230. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kemmer, Suzanne , and Michael Barlow
    2000 “Introduction: A Usage-based Conception of Language.” InUsage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow , and Suzanne Kemmer , vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mithun, Marianne
    2008 “Borrowed Rhetorical Constructions as Starting Points for Grammaticalization.” InConstructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs , and Gabriele Diewald , 196–230. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Noël, Dirk
    2007 “Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory.” Functions of Language14 (2): 177–202. doi: 10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe [Google Scholar]
  49. 2008 “The Nominative and Infinitive in Late Modern English: A Diachronic Constructionist Approach.” Journal of English Linguistics36 (4): 314–340. doi: 10.1177/0075424208321750
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208321750 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2013 “Grammaticalization in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” InAnais do IV Seminário Internacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática e XVII Seminário Nacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática: Teoria da gramaticalização e gramática de construções, ed. by Maria Angélica Furtado da Cunha , Edvaldo Balduíno Bispo , and José Romerito Silva , 5–12. Natal, RN, Brazil: UFRN.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Noël, Dirk , and Timothy Colleman
    2010 “ Believe-type Raising-to-Object and Raising-to-Subject Verbs in English and Dutch: A Contrastive Investigation in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15 (2): 157–182. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.02noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.02noe [Google Scholar]
  52. Peng, Rui
    2013 “A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account of the Chinese Cause-Complement Pivotal Construction.” Language Sciences40: 53–79. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2016 “The Integration of Exemplars and Prior Knowledge in the Extension of Schematic Constructions: Evidence from Chinese Emerge-Hide Construction.” Language Sciences56: 1–29. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pijpops, Dirk , Katrien Beuls , and Freek Van de Velde
    2015 “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An Agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal5: 81–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2015 “A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association3: 1–27. doi: 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  56. Schmid, Hans-Jörg , and Annette Mantlik
    2015, “Entrenchment in Historical Corpora? Reconstructing Dead Authors’ Minds from their Usage Profiles.” Anglia133 (4): 583–623. doi: 10.1515/ang‑2015‑0056
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056 [Google Scholar]
  57. Steels, Luc
    (ed.) 2012Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ais.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.3 [Google Scholar]
  58. Torrent, Tiago Timponi
    2015 “On the Relation between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 173–212. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.06tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003 “Constructions in Grammaticalization.” InThe Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph , and Richard D. Janda , 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2008a “‘All that he endeavoured to prove was …’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogic Contexts.” InLanguage in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. by Robin Cooper , and Ruth Kempson , 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2008b “Grammatikalisierung, emergente Konstruktionen und der Begriff der “Neuheit”.” InKonstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch , and Kerstin Fischer , 5–32. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 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 & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.02tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.02tra [Google Scholar]
  63. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization 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]
  64. 2014 “Contentful Constructionalization.” Journal of Historical Linguistics4 (2): 256–283. doi: 10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra [Google Scholar]
  65. Trousdale, Graeme
    2008a “Words and Constructions in Grammaticalization: The End of the English Impersonal Construction.” InStudies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, ed. by Susan M. Fitzmaurice , and Donka Minkova , 301–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110211801.301
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211801.301 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2008b “Constructions in Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: Evidence from the History of a Composite Predicate in English.” InConstructional Approaches to English Grammar, ed. by Graeme Trousdale , and Nikolas Gisborne , 33–67. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2008c “A Constructional Approach to Lexicalization Processes in the History of English: Evidence from Possessive Constructions.” Word Structure1: 156–177. doi: 10.3366/E1750124508000202
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1750124508000202 [Google Scholar]
  68. 2010 “Issues in Constructional Approaches to Grammaticalization in English.” InGrammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi , Elke Gehweiler , and Ekkehard König , 51–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.119.05tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.05tro [Google Scholar]
  69. 2012a “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” InGrammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse , Tine Breban , Lieselotte Brems , and Tanja Mortelmans , 167–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.130.07tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.07tro [Google Scholar]
  70. 2012b “Theory and Data in Diachronic Construction Grammar: The Case of the What With Construction.” Studies in Language36 (3): 576–602. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.3.05tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.05tro [Google Scholar]
  71. 2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language37 (3): 491–514. doi: 10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro [Google Scholar]
  72. Van de Velde, Freek
    2011 “Left-Peripheral Expansion of the English NP.” English Language and Linguistics15 (2): 387–415. doi: 10.1017/S1360674311000086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000086 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2014 “Degeneracy: The Maintenance of Constructional Networks.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. van Trijp, Remi
    2016The Evolution of Case Grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Verhagen, Arie
    2000 “Interpreting Usage: Construing the History of Dutch Causal Verbs.” InUsage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow , and Suzanne Kemmer , 261–286. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ziegeler, Debra
    2004 “Grammaticalisation through Constructions: The Story of Causative Have in English.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics2: 159–195. doi: 10.1075/arcl.2.06zie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.06zie [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
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