1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 22, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article offers theoretical and programmatic reflection on how the impact of culture on language change should be accounted for from a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammatical perspective, with a focus on how cultural change can cause constructions to disappear from a language. It approaches this question through an assessment of how culture is incorporated in Schmid’s (2020) Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model of ‘the dynamics of the linguistic system’. Against the backdrop of various proposals on the effect of ‘democratization’ in Anglo-Saxon culture on subtractive historical developments in the modal domain of English, and based on a study of interpersonal variation in the intrapersonal longitudinal development of a declining modal construction, the paper argues that the influence of culture on language change is mediated by entrenchment and that culture has a more extensive impact on entrenchment than the EC-model currently allows for.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00152.noe
2023-05-10
2025-01-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00152.noe
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. de Tocqueville, A.
    (1953[1835–40]) Democracy in America [De La Démocratie en Amérique]. New York: Knopf.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Enfield, N. J.
    (2002) Ethnosyntax: Introduction. InN. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp.3–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, V.
    (2012) Cognitive Linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3(2), 129–141. 10.1002/wcs.1163
     https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1163 [Google Scholar]
  7. Garrard, J., Tolz, V., & White, R.
    (2000) Introduction. InJ. Garrard, V. Tolz & R. White (Eds.), European democratization since 1800 (pp.1–5). Houndmills: Macmillan. 10.1057/9780333983317_1
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333983317_1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Harrison, R.
    (1993) Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hilpert, M.
    (2020) The great temptation: What diachronic corpora do and do not reveal about social change. InP. Rautionaho, A. Nurmi & J. Klemola (Eds.), Corpora and the changing society: Studies in the evolution of English (pp.3–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.96.01hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.96.01hil [Google Scholar]
  10. (2021) Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  11. Kulick, D.
    (1992a) Language shift as cultural reproduction. InT. Dutton (Ed.), Culture change, language change (pp.7–26). Canberra: Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (1992b) Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, R. W.
    (1994) Culture, cognition, and grammar. InM. Pütz (Ed.), Language contact and language conflict (pp.25–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.71.02lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.71.02lan [Google Scholar]
  15. Leech, G. N.
    (2003) Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. InR. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp.223–240). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895339.223
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.223 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leech, G.
    (2013) Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. InJ. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Mair, C.
    (2006) Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486951
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486951 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. (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]
  21. 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]
  22. (2011) The modal be bound to constructions and the dynamic English constructicon. Paper presented in theworkshop on ‘Diachronic Construction Grammar’ at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2011), Logroño, Spain, 8–11 September 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2016) For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 301, 39–53. 10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe [Google Scholar]
  24. (2017) The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua, 1991, 72–93. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2019a) 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]
  26. (2019b) The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English: Towards a radically usage-based perspective on constructional attrition. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 22–57. 10.1075/cogls.00029.noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00029.noe [Google Scholar]
  27. (2022) Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction: A radically usage-based exploratory investigation. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 9(1), 1–30. 10.1075/cogls.00088.noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00088.noe [Google Scholar]
  28. Noël, Dirk
    (2023) Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition: Integrating subtractive language developments in the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model. InC. Gentens, L. Ghesquière, W. B. McGregor & A. Van linden (Eds.), Reconnecting form and meaning: In honour of Kristin Davidse (pp.123–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.230.05noe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.230.05noe [Google Scholar]
  29. Noël, D. & Colleman, T.
    (2021) Diachronic construction grammar. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.662–675). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑44
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-44 [Google Scholar]
  30. Noël, D., & van der Auwera, J.
    (2008) Revisiting be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies, 90(5), 599–623. 10.1080/00138380903180926
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138380903180926 [Google Scholar]
  31. Peeters, B.
    (2015) Language and cultural values: Adventures in applied ethnolinguistics. International Journal of Language and Culture, 2(2), 133–141. 10.1075/ijolc.2.2.001pe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.2.2.001pe [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016) applied ethnolinguistics is cultural linguistics, but is it cultural linguistics?International Journal of Language and Culture, 3(2), 137–160. 10.1075/ijolc.3.2.01pee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.3.2.01pee [Google Scholar]
  33. Perkins, M. R.
    (1983) Modal expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.1
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Simpson, J.
    (2002) From common ground to syntactic construction: Associated path in Warlpiri. InN. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp.287–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Sinha, C.
    (2021) Culture in language and cognition. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.387–407). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑27
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-27 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stearns, P., & Stearns, C. Zisowitz
    (1986) Anger: The struggle for emotional control in America’s history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Traugott, E. Closs
    (2022) Ten lectures on a diachronic constructionalist approach to discourse structuring markers. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004507050
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004507050 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Wierzbicka, A.
    (2002) English causative constructions in an ethnosyntactic perspective: Focusing on let. InN. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp.162–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2003[1991]) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Second edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110220964
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220964 [Google Scholar]
  43. (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]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00152.noe
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructional attrition; diachronic construction grammar; Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model; individual differences; usage-based model

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