Cover not available
Part of
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 19–42

Multiple inheritance and constructional change

| University of Edinburgh

Language as a network of dependencies or constructions is a central feature of many cognitive theories of grammar. In this network, inheritance relationships are used to describe synchronic facts about a language whereby members of a less abstract set inherit properties from a more general set, and in the case of multiple inheritance, from more than one general set. This article explores some of the ways in which the language network may change over time, particularly the ways in which more than one constructional type may be considered to be the source of a change in the network.

Keywords: change, composite predicate, Construction Grammar, hybrid construction, network
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.02tro
References
Akimoto, Minoji & Laurel Brinton
1999 The origin of the composite predicate in old English. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 21–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John
1995 Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 203–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
2008 Where lexis and grammar meet: Composite predicates in English. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Minoji Akimoto
1999 Introduction. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1995 Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia
2000 Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck
2011 Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 21. 183–209.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
2001 Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 273–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2005 A corpus of late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29. 69–82.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas
2008 Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar, 219–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff
2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 19–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian & Joybrato Mukherjee
2007 Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32. 5–24.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A
1984 Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2007 Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate
2002 [1988] Light verbs in English. Ms.
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow
2000 Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–28. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2005 Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza & Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith
2009 Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A
1998 Aspectual grammar and past-time reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Stefan T. Gries
2009 Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World Wide 30. 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan Sag & Thomas Wasow
1994 Idioms. Language 70. 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Gabrielle
1991 The phrasal verb type ‘to have a look’ in Modern English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1999 A historical overview of composite predicate types. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 239–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2008 Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate in English. In Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Combettes, Bernard, Mathilde Dargnat, F. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M.-H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2016. Grammaire de constructions et diachronie : Intensivité et concession. SHS Web of Conferences 27 ► pp. 04001 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2022. On Multiple Paths and Change in the Language Network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2022. From noun to verb. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Voicu, Roxana
2019. La polarité de un tant soit peu. Journal of French Language Studies 29:03 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 2024. 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.