Article published in:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 91–113

A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction

| Ghent University
While recent years have seen an increased interest for the potential effects of language contact on the formal and/or semantic properties of constructions, existing case studies of (potentially) contact-induced change in individual constructions (e.g. Pietsch 2010; Höder 2012, 2014; Van de Velde and Zenner 2010; Colleman and Noël 2014, etc.) have so far made little impact on the booming field of diachronic construction grammar at large, i.e. they have stayed largely under the radar of constructionist theorizing about language change. The present paper reflects on the theoretical significance of a recent innovation in Dutch, viz. the emergence of an argument structure construction that mirrors the form and semantics of the English ‘time’-away construction first described in Jacken-doff (1997). While it is fairly uncontroversial that English influence has something to do with this innovation, it is by no means easy to determine exactly what has happened. Even though an alternative scenario, in which the new Dutch pattern developed out of pre-existing Dutch pattern featuring weg ‘away’, cannot be ruled out, I will argue that one plausible way of accounting for the observed facts is to assume that a ready-made English form-meaning unit was copied into Dutch. On this view, the observed change would count as an instance of instantaneous grammatical constructionalization.
Published online: 10 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.05col
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Spike Gildea
2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea
(eds) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten
2014 “Constructions all the Way Everywhere: Four New Directions in Constructionist Research.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 1–14. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2005 Particle Patterns in English: a Comprehensive Coverage. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk Noël
2014 “Tracing the History of Deontic NCI Patterns in Dutch: A Case of Polysemy Copying.” In Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker, and Jukka Tuominen, 213–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
To appear. “Distributional Assimilation in Constructional Semantics: On Contact-related Semantic Shifts in Afrikaans Three-argument Constructions.” To appear in Constructions in Contact ed. by Hans Boas, and Steffen Höder Amsterdam & Philadelphia John Benjamins Crossref
Dixon, R.M.W.
2005 A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doğruöz, Seza, and Ad Backus
2009 “Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of On-going Contact Induced Change.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (1): 41–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elenbaas, Marjon
2007 The Synchronic and Diachronic Syntax of the English Verb-Particle Combination. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009 “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 262–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Principles of Constructional Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 419–437. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2003 “Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.” Trends in Cognitive Science 71: 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2008 “Phraseology and linguistic theory: a brief survey.” In Phraseology: an Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Sylviane Granger, and Fanny Meunier, 3–25. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde van Aken, Vicky Van den Heede, and Dirk Speelman
2000 “Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV corpus of written Dutch].” Nederlandse Taalkunde 51: 356–363.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva
2005 Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höder, Steffen
2012 “Multilingual Constructions: a Diasystematic Approach to Common Structures.” In Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies, ed. by Kurt Braunmüller, and Christoph Gabriel, 241–257. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Constructing Diasystems: Grammatical Organisation in Bilingual Groups”. In The Sociolinguistics of Grammar, ed. by Tor A. Åfarli, and Britt Mæhlum, 137–152. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1997 “Twistin’ the Night Away.” Language 731: 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Constructions in the Parallel Architecture.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 70–92. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron, and Jeanette Sakel
2007 “Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern-Replication.” Studies in Language 311: 829–865. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2003 “Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics: German Prefixes and Particles.” In Yearbook of Morphology 2003, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 119–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007 “Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory.” Functions of Language 141: 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas
2010 “What has Changed in Hiberno-English: Constructions and Their Role in Contact-induced Change.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 631: 118–145.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2008a “The Grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns.” In Constructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs, and Gabriele Diewald, 23–45. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008b “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Incremental Development of Language: Suggestions from the Development of Degree Modifiers in English.” In Variation, Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, ed. by Regine Eckhardt, Gerhard Jäger, and Tonjes Veenstra, 219–250. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015 “Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical Constructionalization.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 51–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Contentful constructionalization.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 41: 256–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
2013 “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language 371: 491–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “On the Relationship between Grammaticalization and Constructionalization.” Folia Linguistica 481: 557–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet, and Lobke Ghesquière
2013 “On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change.” Studies in Language 371: 473–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, and Eline Zenner
2010 “Pimp my Lexis: het nut van corpusonderzoek in normatief taaladvies [Pimp my lexis: the use of corpus research in normative language advice].” In Liever meer of juist minder? Over normen en variatie in taal [Preferably more or rather less? On norms and variation in language], ed. by Els Hendrickx, Karl Hendrickx, Willy Martin, Hans Smessaert, William Van Belle, and Joop van der Horst, 51–68. Gent: Academia press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2007 “English Constructions from a Dutch Perspective: Where Are the Differences?” In Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, ed. by Mike Hannay, and Gerard J. Steen, 257–274. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1953 [1964] Languages in Contact. Second edition. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
WNT = De Vries, M., L.A. Te Winkel et al. (ed.) (1882–1998) Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Dictionary of the Dutch Language]. Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff etc.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo
Percillier, Michael
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 214 ff. Crossref logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 140 ff. Crossref logo
Zenner, Eline, Kris Heylen & Freek Van de Velde
2018. Most borrowable construction ever! A large-scale approach to contact-induced pragmatic change. Journal of Pragmatics 133 ► pp. 134 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 2022. 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.