Article published in:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based ResearchEdited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 371–382
Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical linguistics
Eva Zehentner | University of Zurich
This squib discusses empirical challenges incurred by assuming cognitive reality as a defining feature of
constructions and the constructional network, as done in most usage-based, cognitive construction grammar approaches.
Specifically, it zooms in on the methodological challenges in identifying cognitively plausible constructions in historical data,
in particular when taking a highly exploratory, bottom-up approach with very little pre-selection or pre-analysis. I illustrate
this issue with the example of a current project on PPs in the history of English, and the various functions these have in
combination with verbs (from prototypical adjuncts to complements). I argue that the constraints of historical data make it
necessary to find different, new ways to determine which abstractions and distinctions are likely to have been represented in
minds of historical language users, and to furthermore identify changes in constructional networks over time.
Keywords: diachronic construction grammar, historical linguistics, cognitive reality, prepositional phrases, adjuncts, complements
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Cognitive reality of constructions: Theory and method
- 2.1Constructions and networks as cognitively real
- 2.2Challenges and possible approaches to identifying constructions (and networks)
- 3.Cognitive reality of constructions as a challenge for exploratory diachronic investigations: PPs in the history of English
- 3.1PEAS: English prepositional phrases and their history
- 3.2Challenges and approaches to identifying PP-constructions in the history of English
- 4.Conclusion
- Note
-
References
Published online: 28 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00060.zeh
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00060.zeh
References
Bergen, Benjamin, and Nancy Chang
Bergs, Alexander
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
Budts, Sara, and Peter Petré
Claridge, Claudia
Dąbrowska, Ewa
De Cuypere, Ludovic
Divjak, Dagmar, and Stefan Gries
Glynn, Dylan
Fonteyn, Lauren
Goldberg, Adele
Gries, Stefan
Hilpert, Martin
Hilpert, Martin, and Susanne Flach
Hilpert, Martin, and Florent Perek
Hoffmann, Thomas
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum
Hundt, Marianne, and Eva Zehentner
forthc. “Prepositions in Early Modern English Argument Structure.” In Proceedings of the 20th ICEHL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, Paul
Kroch, Anthony, Ann Taylor, and Beatrice Santorini
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Lauren Delfs
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Ariel Diertani
Lakoff, George
Levshina, Natalia, and Kris Heylen
Lieven, Elena, and Michael Tomasello
Madabushi, Harish Tayyar, Laurence Romain, Dagmar Divjak, and Petar Milin
Percillier, Michael
Perek, Florent
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers, and Freek Van de Velde
2018 “Why and How We Need to Incorporate the Multi-Level Nature of the Constructicon into Corpus Research.” Paper presented at ICCG10.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
Sommerer, Lotte, and Andreas Baumann
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
Tomasello, Michael
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria