1887
Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

On the basis of Present-day English corpus data, this paper investigates deliberate, adaptive linguistic innovations from a constructional perspective. The concrete phenomena addressed include the XYZ construction (“Copenhagen is the Paris of Denmark”), the X Y- Z Q construction (“He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed”), extrasentential (“This is nice. Not.”), X (“racist much?”), and the X construction (“because science”). The paper first identifies speaker extravagance and sociocognitive salience as major factors in these innovations (Haspelmath 1999; Keller 1995; Schmid & Günther 2016). A second question is how these deliberate and noticeable (salient, extravagant) innovations spread and may become routinized and conventionalized, or may even turn into abstract productive patterns. From a constructional perspective, structures may be copied verbatim, leading to an increase in token frequency. A simple increase in token frequency may already result in conventionalization and loss of salience (bleaching). But constructions may not only be copied verbatim. Language users may detect some abstract patterning, which, in turn, can then be used productively. The result would not necessarily be an increase in token, but in type frequency, resulting in snowcloning and general productivity. Arguably, this may lead to a slower loss of salience, e.g., while the abstract pattern and some individual instances become generally less salient, some new, innovative tokens may still be considered extravagant and may keep the pattern productive and noticeable. At the same time, constructions may undergo shifts in their particular constraints (e.g., for slot fillers).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23013.ber
2025-03-03
2026-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersen, Henning
    1989 Understanding linguistic innovations. InLeiv E. Breivik & Ernst. H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 5–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110853063.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110853063.5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthonissen, Lynn
    2021Individuality in language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110725841
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110725841 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bergs, Alexander
    2005Social networks and historical sociolinguistics. Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2010 Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics14(2). 217–238. 10.1017/S1360674310000067
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000067 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018 Because science! Notes on a variable conjunction. InElena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110583571‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110583571-003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Kompa
    2020 Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics13.11. 10.1515/cogsem‑2020‑2025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohmann, Axel
    2016 Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. InLauren Squires (ed.), English in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and change, 149–178. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110490817‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110490817-008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolinger, Dwight
    1968Aspects of language. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton, Laurel & Minoji Akimoto
    (eds.) 1999Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.47 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan
    2015Language change. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139096768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096768 [Google Scholar]
  11. Börgerding, Pia, Marie-Christine Benen & Alexander Bergs
    2020 Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik31(1). 129–153. 10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/10
    https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/10 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dawkins, Richard
    1976The selfish gene. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Diessel, Holger
    2019The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2023The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781009327848
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009327848 [Google Scholar]
  15. Elsness, Johan
    1994 On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal181. 5–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2006Constructions at work. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele & David Casenhiser
    2005 Fast mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science8(6). 500–508. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Gutzmann, Daniel & Robert Henderson
    2015 Expressive, much?Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung191. 286–303. 10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.234
    https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2015.v19i0.234 [Google Scholar]
  21. 2019 Expressive updates, much?Language95(1). 107–135. 10.1353/lan.2019.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0014 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hartmann, Stefan & Tobias Ungerer
    2023Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2024 Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics60(3). 599–634. 10.1017/S0022226723000117
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
    2020 Intersubjectification in constructional change: From confrontation to solidarity in the sarcastic much? construction. Constructions and Frames12.1: 96–120. 10.1075/cf.00036.hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00036.hil [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2019 Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard5(1). 1–8. 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2022aConstruction Grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781139004213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139004213 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2022b Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association10(1). 259–284. 10.1515/gcla‑2022‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0012 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 Linguistics and poetics. InThomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Kanetani, Masaru
    2015 On the new usage of because. Studies in Language and Literature [Language]681. 63–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Keller, Rudi
    1995On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker
    2022 (Non-)ellipses in Dutch, English, and German. The case of because X. Nederlandse Taalkunde273(3). 333–367. 10.5117/NEDTAA2022.3.003.KONV
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2022.3.003.KONV [Google Scholar]
  33. Lyons, John
    1982 Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?InRobert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York, NY: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sampson, Geoffrey
    2016 Two ideas of creativity. InMartin Hinton (ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2020The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther
    2016 Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology/Psychology of Language71. 1110. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01110 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sullivan, Kevin
    2010 Buffy (and SNL) ‘much’ much?: Slang research with Hulu.com, Part 2. Language and humor, June 8, 2010. Online: languageandhumor.com/blog/2008/06/buffy-and-snl-much-much-slang-research-with-hulu-com-part-2/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Swift, Jonathan
    1726Gulliver’s travels. London: Benjamin Motte.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Theocharous, S. P., Evangelos Theocharous & John H. Lehman
    2012 The evaluation of the performance of two pyroelectric detectors with vertically aligned multi-walled carbon nanotube coatings. Infrared Physics & Technology55(4). 299–305. 10.1016/j.infrared.2012.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infrared.2012.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tomasello, Michael
    2006 Construction grammar for kids. ConstructionsSV1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1989 On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65(1). 31–55. 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier
    1999 A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today20(3). 397–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
    2020 Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics341. 345–356. 10.1075/bjl.00058.ung
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00058.ung [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23013.ber
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.23013.ber
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conventionalization; creativity; extravagance; salience; snowcloning; syntactic innovations
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