Article published in:
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. 63–94

Serving two masters

Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams

| University of Leuven
| Research Foundation — Flanders
This paper examines two cases of so-called syntactic amalgams. In syntactic amalgams a particular string that is shared by two constructions is exploited to combine them, in such a way that one of the constructions functions as a modifier of the other. Typical examples are after God knows how many years (< after many years + God knows how many years) and a big enough house (< a big house + big enough). In formal theories, these kinds of constructions have been insightfully described as ‘grafts’. However, the exact process through which these amalgams arise remains unexplored. When studied closely, these processes reveal form–function friction not fully accounted for by the graft metaphor. Syntactic amalgams typically serve a subjective function and have been recruited for this purpose. However, because they consist of a syntagm that is still internally parsable, they tend to resist full reanalysis. More precisely, their original syntax continues to constrain their use. As such, amalgams get caught between their original syntax, which remains transparent, and their new function, which suggests a new syntactic status. This appears clearly from contrastive studies of amalgams in Dutch and English that are functionally similar but whose use is constrained in different ways due to structural differences between the two languages. Our first case study deals with the Dutch and English amalgam wie weet / who knows. A contrastive analysis of the development of the respective items shows both the conservative effect of the origin of change and the attraction exerted by the target of change. The second case we discuss in detail involves so-called transparent free relatives. A contrastive analysis shows the role of the overall grammar of a language in licensing change, in this case with Dutch word order posing more difficulties to the new focusing function of transparent free relatives. In general, both case studies show the formation of syntactic amalgams to be sensitive to system pressures both in the course of their development and in the eventual outcome of change.
Keywords: analogy, Dutch, English, grafts, reanalysis, syntactic amalgams
Published online: 25 November 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.04des
References

References

Barbiers, Sjef
1995 The syntax of interpretation. Den Haag: HIL Dissertations.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
1999 The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte
2010 Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14(1). 83–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
2012 The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
1987 The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins
2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3). 546–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje
2001 From ancient Germanic to modern Germanic languages. In artin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Vol. 2, 1706–1719. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Etsuyo Yausa
2008 A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 45–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Kristin Davidse
2011 The development of intensification scales in nounintensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics 15(2). 251–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Freek Van de Velde
2011 A corpus-based view on Bolinger’s shift from identification to intensification: English such and Dutch zulk . Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 765–797. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harbert, Wayne
2007 The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, Johannes M.
2008 Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Houle, Leah & Rebeca Martínez Gómez
2011 A closer look at quizá(s): Grammaticalization and an epistemic adverb. In Luis A. Ortiz-López (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 296–304. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast
2009 Understanding English-German contrasts, 2nd edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Kruyt, Johanna G. & Tilly Dutilh
1997 A 38 million words Dutch text corpus and its users. Lexikos 7. 229–244.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1988 [1974]. Syntactic amalgams. In Eric Schiller, Barbara Need, Douglas Varley & William H. Eilfort (eds.), The best of CLS: A selection of out-of-print papers from 1968 to 1975, 25–45. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher
1999 Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D.
1988 The syntactic phenomena of English, 2 vols. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu
1991 But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2001 The passive matrices of English infinitival complement clauses: Evidentials on the road to auxiliarihood? Studies in Language 25(2). 255–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk & Timothy Colleman
2010 ACI verbs and NCI verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive diachronic construction grammatical investigation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(2). 157–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Rodney Huddleston
2002 Nouns and noun phrases. In Rodney Huddleston & George Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 423–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & David Crystal
1985 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
2001 A far from simple matter: Syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 21–41. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Pieter-Arno Coppen & Nelleke Oostdijk
2004 Transparent free relatives. In Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente & Mark de Vos (eds.), Proceedings of CONSOLE XII, available at http://​www​.sole​.leidenuniv​.nl​/content​_docs​/ConsoleXII2003pdfs​/schelfhout​-2003​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2006 The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008a Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008b The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 21–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
2010 A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14(3). 399–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2009 De nominale constituent: Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
2011 Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 15(2). 387–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vries, Mark de
2003 Three-dimensional grammar. In Leonie Cornips & Paula Fikkert (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2003, 201–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, Chris
1999 Transparent free relatives. In N. Shahin Kimary, Susan Blake & Kim Eun-Sook (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 685–699. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker, et al.
1997 Grammatik der deutschenSprache, 3 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2006 Over het enten van interpolaties. Tabu 35(3–4). 163–180.Google Scholar
2011 The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar