Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics
Edited by Tanja Säily, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin and Anita Auer
[Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 7] 2017
► pp. 217–237

Historical sociolinguistics and construction grammar

From mutual challenges to mutual benefits

This paper makes the case that Historical Sociolinguistics holds critical implications for Construction Grammar, which in return can contribute ideas to the study of sociolinguistic change. The relation of these approaches is discussed from two angles. On the one hand, there are theoretical and methodological divergences that translate into mutual challenges. On the other hand, there are common goals and assumptions that make it worthwhile to combine the perspectives. The advantages and limitations of such a combined approach are illustrated on the basis of a corpus-based study of an idiomatic schema that is referred to as the sarcastic much? construction in this paper.

Keywords: Historical Sociolinguistics, Construction Grammar, knowledge of language, language use, informational maximalism, variation, dynamicity, dialogical constructions, varieties of English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mutual challenges
  • 3.Mutual benefits
  • 4.An example analysis: sarcastic much?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.7.09hil
References
Adams, Michael
2014 Slang in new media. A case study. In Julie Coleman (ed.), Global English slang. Methodologies and perspectives, 175–186. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter, Julia Breuniger, Dominique Huck & Martin Pfeiffer
2015 Auswirkungen der Staatsgrenze auf die Sprachsituation im Oberrheingebiet (Frontière linguistique au Rhin Supérieur, FLARS). In Roland Kehrein, Alfred Lameli & Stefan Rabanus (eds.), Regionale Variation des Deutschen, 323–348. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Spike Gildea & Lotte Sommerer
(eds.) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
2012 Entrenchment in usage-based theories. What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C
2013 Cognitive Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brône, Geert & Elisabeth Zima
2014 Towards a dialogic construction grammar. A corpus-based approach to ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3). 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Clay Beckner
2010 Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827–855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A
1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2013 Corpus of Global Web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Available online at [URL].
Deppermann, Arnulf
2011 Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 205–238. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3). 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
2004 Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1979 Footing. Semiotica 25. 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995 Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. E
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François & Ping Li
2013 The psycholinguistics of bilingualism. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre
(eds.) 2012 The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Jan-Ola Östman
(eds.) 2016 Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, Steffen
2010 Sprachausbau im Sprachkontakt. Syntaktischer Wandel im Altschwedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
2012 Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Kurt Braunmüller & Christoph Gabriel (eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies, 241–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2015 Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3). 273–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
(eds.) 2013 The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2015 Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1). 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, Jennifer Andrus & Andrew E. Danielson
2006 Mobility, indexicality, and the enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”. Journal of English Linguistics 34(2). 77–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul
2013 The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte
2008 Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In Gitte Kristiansen & René Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems, 45–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte & Dirk Geeraerts
2013 Contexts and usage in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics 52. 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
2012 New perspectives, theories and methods: Historical sociolinguistics. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel Brinton (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 34.2), 1438–1457. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015 What are historical sociolinguistics? Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1(2). 243–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
(eds.) 1996 Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2012 Historical sociolinguistics: Origins, motivations and paradigms. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 22–40. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta & Barbara C. Malt
2011 Kitchen Russian: Cross-linguistic differences and first-language object naming by Russian–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(1). 19–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter
2014 Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schendl, Herbert
2012 Multilingualism, code-switching and language contact in historical sociolinguistics. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 520–533. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shank, Christopher, Koen Plevoets & Julie Van Bogaert
2016 A multifactorial analysis of that/zero alternation. The diachronic development of the zero complementizer with think, guess and understand . In Jiyoung Yoon & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to Construction Grammar, 201–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander
2015 Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. In Alexander Ziem & Alexander Lasch (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen, 1–22. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth
2014 Gibt es multimodale Konstruktionen? Eine Studie zu [V(motion) in circles] und [all the way from X PREP Y]. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 15. 1–48.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2020. Intersubjectification in constructional change. Constructions and Frames 12:1 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2022. Intersubjectification in constructional change. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Petré, Peter & Lynn Anthonissen
2020. Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.