1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Historical Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of On the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness in grammatical change
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

We argue that we should maintain the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness in grammatical change, especially in usage-based linguistics, as it offers a more fine-grained perspective on types of context, change, and linguistic structure. Drawing on previous research, we present two case studies: the semantic history of , and the morphosyntactic history of Mandarin modals and conditionals. These studies show that the initial relation involved in grammatical change is one of vagueness. We also contrast our usage-based perspective with that of frameworks where the clause is hierarchically organised such that the initial relation is more likely one of ambiguity.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
2026-03-02
2026-03-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo/jhl.24038.kuo.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ansaldo, Umberto, Walter Bisang & Pui Yiu Szeto
    2018 Grammaticalization in isolating languages and the notion of complexity. Grammaticalization from a typological perspectiveed. byHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anttila, Raimo
    1989 Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bisang, Walter
    2004 Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning as an areal phenomenon in East and Mainland Southeast Asia: The case of tense-aspect-mood (TAM). What makes grammaticalization? A look from its components and its fringesed. byWalter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110197440.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and Mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences. (). –. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blevins, Juliette & Andrew Wedel
    2009 Inhibited sound change. Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble [Google Scholar]
  6. Boye, Kasper
    2023 Grammaticalization as conventionalization of discursively secondary status: Deconstructing the lexical–grammatical continuum. Transactions of the Philological Society(). –. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12265
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12265 [Google Scholar]
  7. Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
    2016 Reading the intentions of be going to. On the subjectification of future markers. Folia Linguistica Historica. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan & Pagliuca, William
    1987 The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguisticsed. byAnna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba & Giuliano Bernini, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.48.09byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.48.09byb [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan
    2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelle, Bert & Ilse Depraetere
    2016 Short-circuited interpretations of modal verb constructions: Some evidence from The Simpsons. Constructions and Frames(). –. 10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.1.02cap [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappelle, Bert
    2014 Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. Extending the scope of Construction Grammared. byRonny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.251
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.251 [Google Scholar]
  13. Catlin, Jane-Carol & Jack Catlin
    1972 Intentionality: A source of ambiguity in English?Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Keh-Jiann, Chu-Ren Huang, Li-Ping Chang & Hui-Li Hsu
    1996 Sinica corpus: Design methodology for balanced corpora. Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999 Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Condoravdi, Cleo & Sven Lauer
    2016 Anankastic conditionals are just conditionals. Semantics and Pragmatics(). –. 10.3765/sp.9.8
     https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.8 [Google Scholar]
  17. Copley, Bridget Lynn
    2002 The semantics of the future. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyPhD dissertation.
  18. Croft, William
    2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2003 Lexical rules versus constructions: A false dichotomy. Motivation in languageed. byHubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  21. Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö
    1994 The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. Studies in early modern Englished. byDieter Kastovsky, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110879599.59
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879599.59 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dautriche, Isabelle, Laia Fibla, Anne-Caroline Fievet & Anne Christophe
    2018 Learning homophones in context: Easy cases are favored in the lexicon of natural languages. Cognitive Psychology. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. De Smet, Hendrik & Marie-Anne Markey
    2021 The spark or the fuel? On the role of ambiguity in language change. Journal of Historical Syntax(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. De Smet, Hendrik
    2009 Analysing reanalysis. Lingua. –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012 The course of actualization. Language(). –. 10.1353/lan.2012.0056
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0056 [Google Scholar]
  26. De Smet, Isabeau & Laura Rosseel
    2024 Who’s afraid of homophones? A multimethodological approach to homophony avoidance. Language and Cognition(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Deane, Paul
    1988 Polysemy and cognition. Lingua. –. 10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90009‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90009-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Denison, David
    2017 Ambiguity and vagueness in historical change. The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectivesed. byMarianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316091746.013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.013 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018 Why would anyone take long? Word classes and Construction Grammar in the history of long. Category change from a constructional perspectiveed. byKristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit
    2002 Grammaticalization vs reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft. –. 10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151 [Google Scholar]
  31. Detges, Ulrich, Richard Waltereit, Esme Winter-Froemel & Anne C. Wolfsgruber
    2021 Positioning reanalysis and reanalysis research. Journal of Historical Syntax(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dietrich, Nadine
    2024a The seamlessness of grammatical innovation: The case of be going to (revisited). Folia Linguistica Historica(). –. 10.1515/flin‑2024‑2004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2004 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2024b Semasiological and onomasiological conditions for semantic-grammatical innovations: A study of semantic-grammatical innovations in the development of be going to. University of Edinburgh PhD dissertation.
  34. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalizationed. byIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  35. Disney, Steve
    2009 A domain matrix view of the uses and development of BE going to + infinitive. Papers from the Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics & Language Teaching 2008, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Duffley, Patrick
    2019 Must/need, may/can and the scope of the modal auxiliary: May thee know the pitfalls of thy paraphrases!Studies in Language(). –. 10.1075/sl.18062.duf
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18062.duf [Google Scholar]
  37. 2024 The scope of the problems with the problem of scope. Folia Linguistica(). –. 10.1515/flin‑2023‑2029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2029 [Google Scholar]
  38. Eifring, Halvor
    1995 Clause combination in Chinese. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Enfield, N. J.
    2021 The languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108605618
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605618 [Google Scholar]
  40. Garrett, Andrew
    2011 The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomesed. byDianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582624.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  41. Geeraerts, Dirk
    1993 Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.223 [Google Scholar]
  42. Goldberg, Adele. E.
    1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard
    2008 Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic Issues. A study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs. Oxford/Leiden: Elsevier/Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2021 In defense of a pragmatic view of reanalysis. Journal of Historical Syntax(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
    1995 Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620553
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620553 [Google Scholar]
  46. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. New reflections on grammaticalizationed. byIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  47. Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie
    2008 Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hengeveld, Kees
    2017 A hierarchical approach to grammaticalization. The grammaticalization of tense, aspect, modality and evidentiality: A functional perspectiveed. byKees Hengeveld, Heiko Narrog & Hella Olbertz, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110519389‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110519389-002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hilpert, Martin
    2015 From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hsu, Yu-Yin
    2023 Modal raising and focus marking in Chinese. Journal of Linguistics, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kaplan, Abby & Yuka Muratani
    2015 Categorical and gradient homophony avoidance: Evidence from Japanese. Laboratory Phonology(). –. 10.1515/lp‑2015‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2015-0006 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kaplan, Abby
    2015 The evidence for homophony avoidance in language change: Reply to Sampson (2013). Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.32.2.04kap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.32.2.04kap [Google Scholar]
  54. Kennedy, Christopher
    2011 Ambiguity and vagueness: An overview. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 1ed. byClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226614.507
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.507 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kratzer, Angelika
    1981 The notional category of modality. Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semanticsed. byHans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110842524‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110842524-004 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2012 Modals and conditionals: New and revised perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234684.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kuo, Yueh Hsin
    2021 Morphosyntactic vagueness and directionality. The Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association(). –. 10.1515/gcla‑2021‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2021-0005 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2022a Bidirectionality between modality and conditionality in Chinese: A constructionalization account. Diachronica(). –. 10.1075/dia.20047.kuo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.20047.kuo [Google Scholar]
  59. 2022b From deontic modality to conditionality: A diachronic investigation into bì in Classical Chinese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics(). –. 10.1075/jhp.19002.kuo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.19002.kuo [Google Scholar]
  60. 2022c From dynamic modal to conditional protasis connective: Evidence from Chinese néng ‘be able to’. Functions of Language(): –. 10.1075/fol.20030.kuo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20030.kuo [Google Scholar]
  61. 2024 Bidirectional grammaticalization: Chinese modal and conditional. Journal of Linguistics(). –. 10.1017/S0022226723000087
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000087 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2025 Bidirectional cycles of indirectness in Mandarin. The role of pragmatics in cyclic language changeed. byMaj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Richard Waltereit, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/9780198940661.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/9780198940661.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  63. . Forthcoming. On the directionality from temporal to conditional. Folia Linguistica. 10.1515/flin‑2025‑2021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2025-2021 [Google Scholar]
  64. Labov, William
    1994 Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Lakoff, George
    1970 A note on vagueness and ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1977 Syntactic reanalysis. Mechanisms of syntactic changeed. byCharles N. Li, –. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑005
     https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-005 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2009 Metonymic grammar. Metonymy and metaphor in grammared. byKlaus-Uwe Panther, Linda L. Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  68. Lass, Roger
    1997 Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620928
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620928 [Google Scholar]
  69. Leclercq, Benoît
    2022 From modals to modal constructions: An n-gram analysis of can, could and be able to. Constructions and Frames(). –. 10.1075/cf.21001.lec
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.21001.lec [Google Scholar]
  70. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2004 Meaning and the English verb. Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520352858
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  72. Murphy, M. Lynne
    2003 Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486494
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486494 [Google Scholar]
  73. Narrog, Heiko
    2012 Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Nehls, Dietrich
    1988 Modality and the expression of future time in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Nesselhauf, Nadja
    2012 Mechanisms of language change in a functional system. Journal of Historical Linguistics(). –. 10.1075/jhl.2.1.06nes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.2.1.06nes [Google Scholar]
  76. Núñez Pertejo, Paloma
    1999 Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica. –. 10.1080/003932799750041687
     https://doi.org/10.1080/003932799750041687 [Google Scholar]
  77. Peng, Lizhen
    2007 Xiandai hanyu qingtai yanjiu [A study of Modern Chinese modals]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Pérez Hernández, Lorena & Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza
    2002 Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)80002‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)80002-9 [Google Scholar]
  79. Petré, Peter
    2016 Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of [be going to INF]. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. –. 10.1075/bjl.30.06pet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.06pet [Google Scholar]
  80. 2019 How constructions are born: The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. Patterns in language and linguistics: New perspectives on a ubiquitous concepted. byBeatrix Busse & Ruth Moehlig-Falke, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110596656‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110596656-007 [Google Scholar]
  81. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammared. byLiliane Haegeman, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  82. Roberts, Ian
    1993 A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 2010 Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalizationed. byElizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.05rob
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.05rob [Google Scholar]
  84. Rosemeyer, Malte & Eitan Grossman
    2021 Why don’t grammaticalization pathways always recur?Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1515/cllt‑2020‑0053
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0053 [Google Scholar]
  85. Sommerer, Lotte & Andreas Baumann
    2021 Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0013 [Google Scholar]
  86. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics(). –. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  87. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From Etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  88. Tang, Ting-chi
    1988 Hànyǔ cífǎ jùfǎ lùnjí [Essays on Chinese morphology and syntax]. Taipei: Xuéshēng shūjú.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Thornburg, Linda & Klaus-Uwe Panther
    1997 Speech act metonymies. Discourse and perspective in Cognitive Linguisticsed. byWolf-Andreas Liebert, Gisela Redeker & Linda Waugh, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  90. Timberlake, Alan
    1977 Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. Mechanisms of syntactic changeed. byCharles N. Li, –. Austin: University of Texas Press. 10.7560/750357‑006
     https://doi.org/10.7560/750357-006 [Google Scholar]
  91. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale
    (eds) 2010 Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
  92. 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]
  93. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard Dasher
    2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2011 Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalizationed. byHeiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0002 [Google Scholar]
  95. 2012 The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing pathsed. byMerja Kytö, –. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 2017 Low salience as an enabling factor in morphosyntactic change. The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectivesed. byMarianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds.), –. 10.1017/9781316091746.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.005 [Google Scholar]
  97. 2022 Discourse structuring markers in English: A historical constructionalist perspective on pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.33
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.33 [Google Scholar]
  98. 2023 Context in historical linguistics. The Cambridge handbook of language in contexted. byJesús Romero-Trillo–. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108989275.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108989275.003 [Google Scholar]
  99. Tsao, Feng-fu
    1996 Hànyǔ de tíshēng dòngcí [Raising verbs in Chinese]. Zhongguo Yuwen(), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Tuggy, David
    1993 Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.3.273 [Google Scholar]
  101. Van der Auwera, Johan
    1985 Language and Logic: A speculative and condition-theoretic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. van Gelderen, Elly
    2019 Cyclical change and problems of projection. Cycles in language changeed. byMiriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert & Elisabeth Witzenhausen, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  103. Wedel, Andrew & Ibrahim Fatkullin
    2017 Category competition as a driver of category contrast. Journal of Language Evolution. (). –. 10.1093/jole/lzx009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx009 [Google Scholar]
  104. Wedel, Andrew, Abby Kaplan & Scott Jackson
    2013 High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition(). –. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  105. Wei, Pei-chuan, P. M. Thompson, Cheng-hui Liu, Chu-Ren Huang & Chaofen Sun
    1997 Historical Corpora for Synchronic and Diachronic Linguistics Studies. International Journal of Computational Linguistics & Chinese Language Processing(). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Xing, Janet Zhiqun
    2012 Introduction. Newest trends in the study of grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chineseed. byJanet Zhiqun Xing, –. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110253009.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110253009.1 [Google Scholar]
  107. 2015 A comparative study of semantic change in grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese and Germanic languages. Studies in Language. (). –. 10.1075/sl.39.3.03xin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.3.03xin [Google Scholar]
  108. Zehentner, Eva
    2021 Ambiguity avoidance as a factor in the rise of the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0018 [Google Scholar]
  109. 2022 Revisiting gradience in Diachronic Construction Grammar: PPs and the complement-adjunct distinction in the history of English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik(). –. 10.1515/zaa‑2022‑2066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2022-2066 [Google Scholar]
  110. Zwicky, Arnold M. & Jerrold M. Sadock
    1975 Identity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4ed. byJohn P. Kimball, –. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368828_002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368828_002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
Loading
On the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness in grammatical change
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.24038.kuo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: vagueness ; grammaticalization ; usage-based linguistics ; ambiguity

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