1887
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Starting from a traditional corpus-based investigation of an example of constructional attrition, i.e. of a sustained drop in the frequency of use of a construction in a language’s history, this paper argues that usage data which make abstraction from individual speakers can no more account for this kind of constructional change than they can for constructionalization, the creation of new constructions. A more ‘radically’ usage-based approach to diachronic construction grammar implements the cognitive commitment of this subdiscipline of cognitive linguistics and ultimately explains all constructional change with reference to individual speakers’ grammars. Since no two speakers’ experience-based constructicons are identical, it is hypothesized that, very similar to constructionalization, constructional attrition starts from interpersonal variation and the paper encourages the use of idiolectal historical corpora to find corroboration for this. The case of constructional attrition presented in descriptive detail is that of the English D construction, which is instantiated by such forms as and . Previous research established this schema to have grown in frequency and productivity from the 14th until the 18th century and the current paper documents the start of its subsequent decline with data from the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts. It goes on to ask whether a usage-based approach should stop at offering cultural explanations for such developments and proposes a more genuinely cognitive line of explanatory attack.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00029.noe
2019-07-12
2019-07-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barlow, M.
    (2013) Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. 10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.01bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, J. , Smirnova, E. , Sommerer, L. , & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergs, A. , & Hoffmann, T.
    (Eds.) (2017) Cognitive approaches to the history of English, special issue. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2). 10.1017/S1360674317000077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000077 [Google Scholar]
  4. Beuls, K. , & van Trijp, R.
    (2016a) Computational construction grammar and constructional change. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 1–13. 10.1075/bjl.30.01beu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.01beu [Google Scholar]
  5. Beuls, K. K. , & van Trijp, R.
    (Eds.) (2016b) Computational construction grammar and constructional change (=Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bjl.30.01beu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.01beu [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Boas, H. C. & Höder, S.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24 [Google Scholar]
  8. Booij, G.
    (Ed.) (2018) The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
    (2006) The Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide – Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Coates, J.
    (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Colleman, T. , & Noël, D.
    (2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–28. 10.1075/jhp.13.1.01col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.1.01col [Google Scholar]
  12. Collins, P.
    (2009) Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042029095
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042029095 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2014) Quasi-modals and modals in Australian English fiction 1800–1999, with comparisons across British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 7–30. 10.1177/0075424213512857
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213512857 [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, P. , Macalinga Borlongan, A. , & Yao, X.
    (2014) Modality in Philippine English: A diachronic study. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 68–88. 10.1177/0075424213511462
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213511462 [Google Scholar]
  15. Coussé, E. , Andersson, P. , & Olofsson, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coussé, E. & von Mengden, F.
    (Eds.) (2014) Usage-based approaches to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sfsl.69
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. 10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab [Google Scholar]
  18. (2016) Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059 [Google Scholar]
  19. Davidse, K. , Breban, T. , Brems, L. , & Mortelmans, T.
    (Eds.) (2012) Grammaticalization and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130 [Google Scholar]
  20. De Smet, H.
    (2016) How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 83–102. 10.1017/S0954394515000186
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000186 [Google Scholar]
  21. Disney, S.
    (2016) Another visit to be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English studies, 97(8), 892–916. 10.1080/0013838X.2016.1206333
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2016.1206333 [Google Scholar]
  22. Evans, V.
    (2016) Cognitive linguistics. In S. E. F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive science (pp.283–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, O.
    (1989) The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica, 8(1–2), 143–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2009) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?View[z]: Vienna English Working Papers, 18(2), 3–23. [Republished as Fischer 2011.]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp.31–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hancil, S. , Breban, T. & Vincento Lozano, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) New trends on grammaticalization and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.202
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.202 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In M. Hundt , S. Mollin & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp.49–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.003 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2018) Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé , P. Andersson , & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp.21–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hundt, M. , Mollin, S. , & Pfenninger, S. E.
    (Eds.) (2017) The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1999) Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.13–59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110803464.13
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.13 [Google Scholar]
  36. Leech, G.
    (2013) Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In J. I. Marín-Arrese , M. Carretero Lapeyre , J. Arús Hita & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp.95–115). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110286328.95
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328.95 [Google Scholar]
  37. Leech, G. , Hundt, M. , Mair, C. & Smith, N.
    (2009) Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  38. Mailhammer, R.
    (Ed.) (2013) Lexical and structural etymology: Beyond word histories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614510581
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510581 [Google Scholar]
  39. Myhill, J.
    (1995) Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics, 33(2), 157–211. 10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.157
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.157 [Google Scholar]
  40. (1996) The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech, 71 (4), 339–388. 10.2307/455712
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455712 [Google Scholar]
  41. Noël, D.
    (2008) The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36 (4), 314–340. 10.1177/0075424208321750
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208321750 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2013) Grammaticalization in diachronic construction grammar. In M. A. Furtado da Cunha , E. Balduíno Bispo & J. Romerito Silva (Eds.), Anais 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 (pp.5–12). Natal, RN, Brazil: UFRN.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2016) For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 39–53. 10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe [Google Scholar]
  44. (2017) The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua, 199, 72–93. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2019) The author and the text in radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar, or why historical linguists have started analysing text again. Functions of Language, 26 (1), 56–63. 10.1075/fol.00017.noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.00017.noe [Google Scholar]
  46. Norde, M.
    (In preparation). An introduction to diachronic construction morphology. Ms.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Norde, M. & Van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2016) Exaptation and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.336
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.336 [Google Scholar]
  48. Palmer, F. R.
    (1990) Modality and the English modals. 2nd Edn.London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2003) Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinetti , M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp.1–17). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110895339.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.1 [Google Scholar]
  50. Perkins, M. R.
    (1983) Modal expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Petré, P.
    (2016) Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 115–146. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
  52. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 1–27. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schmid, H.-J. , & Mantlik, A.
    (2015) Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. 10.1515/ang‑2015‑0056
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2015-0056 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Traugott, E. Closs
    (2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt , G. Jäger & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp.219–250). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, E. Closs , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Goethem, K. , Norde, M. , Coussé, E. , & Vanderbauwhede, G.
    (Eds.) (2018) Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20 [Google Scholar]
  59. van Rooy, B. , & Wasserman, R.
    (2014) Do the modals of Black and White South African English converge?Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 51–67. 10.1177/0075424213511463
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213511463 [Google Scholar]
  60. van Trijp, R.
    (2016) The evolution of case grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_611694
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_611694 [Google Scholar]
  61. Westney, P.
    (1995) Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110958904
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110958904 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2006) English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Winters, M. E.
    (2010) Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In M. E. Winters , H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp.3–27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226447.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226447.3 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2017) Psycho-historical linguistics: its context and potential. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 413–421. 10.1017/S1360674317000223
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000223 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zenner, E. , Backus, A. , & Winter-Froemel, E.
    (Eds.) (2019) Cognitive contact linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-induced variation and change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110619430
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110619430 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00029.noe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00029.noe
Loading

Data & Media 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