Article published in:
Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea
[Constructional Approaches to Language 18] 2015
► pp. 51–80

Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization

| Stanford University
Diachronic construction grammar addresses a range of theoretical topics from lexicalization to grammaticalization. In most cases, a historical dimension has been added to a largely synchronic theory, or construction grammar has been seen as a tool for diachronic analysis. In the spirit of rethinking grammaticalization in construction grammar terms, the present chapter focuses on how a constructionalization approach can inform certain debates in the grammaticalization literature. The specific debates addressed are: (1) Is it possible to reconcile the two current main views of grammaticalization as (a) reduced form and increased dependency (Lehmann 1995; Haspelmath 2004), or (b) expansion of contexts (Himmelmann 2004)? (2) Is there “pure” grammaticalization without analogy (Haspelmath 2004; Lehmann 2004)? (3) What relative weight should be given to reanalysis and analogy (Fischer 2007)? The answer to the first question is that from a constructional perspective the two approaches to grammaticalization can indeed be reconciled. With respect to the second and third questions, there can be no “pure” grammaticalization without analogy understood as a motivation (analogical thinking). Since reanalysis can occur independently of analogy and accompanies analogy understood as a mechanism (analogization), it encompasses more changes and is therefore primary. This approach is illustrated with a new look at the development of BE going to in English.
Published online: 30 July 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.02tra
References
Andersen, H
(2001) Actualization and the (uni)directionality. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization: Linguistic change in progress (pp. 225–248). [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 219]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R
(2003) Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In B.D. Joseph, & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 425–440). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J
(2001) Case in Icelandic—A synchronic, diachronic, and comparative approach. [Lundastudier i Nordisk språkvetenskap, A 57]. Lund: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. [Constructional Approaches to Language, 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K.E., & Sveen, A
(2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V- REFL-NP construction. Linguistics, 49, 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. [Trends in Linguistics, 194]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R
(2006) Phonological change in optimality theory. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 9 (pp. 497–505). Oxford: Elsevier, 2nd revised ed. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L
(2011) Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. [Topics in English Linguistics, 74]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L.J
(2008) The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph, & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W
(1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CED
. A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (2006) Compiled under the supervision of M. Kytö & J. Culpeper. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/CoRD​/corpora​/CED​/index​.html.
Colleman, T., & Clerck, B. de
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Typology. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 337–368). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Danchev, A., & Kytö, M
(1994) The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in early modern English (pp. 59–77). [Topics in English Linguistics, 13]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 88, 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). [Typological Studies in Language, 49]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 450–461). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R
(2006) Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., & Kay, P
(1997) Berkeley construction grammar. http://​www​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/~kay​/bcg​/ConGram​.html.
Fischer, O
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 181–220). [Studies in Language Companion Series, 119]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, S
(1982) The future in thought and language. Diachronic evidence from Romance [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 36]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E.J., & Michaelis, L.A
(Eds.) (2003) Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fried, M
(2008) Constructions and constructs: Mapping a diachronic process. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 47–79). [Trends in Linguistics, 194]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009) Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames, 1, 262–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A
(2012) The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman, & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 52–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N
(2011) Constructions, word grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 155–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Patten, A
(2011) Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 92–104). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T
(1991) The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 2 (pp. 257–310). [Typological Studies in Language, 19.2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. [Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A.C., & Campbell, L
(1995) Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(1998) Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22, 315–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Peridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline - The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). [Typological Studies in Language, 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). [Typological Studies in Language, 49]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T
(2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
HC. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts
(1991) Compiled by M. Rissanen, M. Kytö; L. Kahlas-Tarkka, M. Kilpiö (Old English); S. Nevanlinna, I. Taavitsainen (Middle English); T. Nevalainen, H. Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English). Department of English, University of Helsinki. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/CoRD​/corpora​/HelsinkiCorpus​/index​.html.
Hilpert, M
(2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. [Constructional Approaches to Language, 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). [Trends in Linguistics, 158]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.D
(2004) Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization ‘theory.’ In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Peridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline - The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 45–71). [Typological Studies in Language, 59]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T
(2011) On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35, 852–897. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P
(2012) Grammaticalization as optimization. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman, & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 15–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T
(2001) Auxiliation: An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1977) Syntactic reanalysis. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–139). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N
(2009) Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C
(1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile, XX, 303–318.Google Scholar
(1995) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA (2nd, rev. ed. of Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 1982).Google Scholar
(2002) New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). [Typological Studies in Language, 49]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization. In G. Diewald (Ed.), Grammatikalisierung, Special issue of Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 32, 152–187.Google Scholar
(2008) Information structure and grammaticalization. In E. Seoane, & M.J. López-Couso (Eds., in collaboration with T. Fanego), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 207–229). [Typological Studies in Language, 77]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D
(1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 23]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) The development of language: Acquisition, change, evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
LION. Literature on line
http://​lion​.chadwyck​.com.
Mair, C
(2004) Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist, & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 121–150). [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Masini, F
(2007) Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure, 2, 254–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A
(1958) L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion (originally published 1912).Google Scholar
Mondorf, B
(2011) Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language variation and change, 22, 397–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N
(2012) Mechanisms of language change in a functional system: The recent semantic evolution of English future time expressions. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 2, 83–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14, 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L., & Schøsler, L
(2011) Connecting grammaticalisation: The role of paradigmatic structure. [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 65]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary
http://​www​.oed​.com/.
OBP. The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674-1913
2012 T. Hitchcock, R. Shoemaker, C. Emsley, S. Howard, and J. McLaughlin, et al. www​.oldbaileyonline​.org,version7​.0.
Patten, A
(2012) The English it-cleft: A constructional account and diachronic investigation. [Topics in English Linguistics, 79]. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M
(1999) Syntax. In R. Lass (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language: Vol. 3: 1476–1776 (pp. 187–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004) Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s) . In H. Lindquist, & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L
(1997) Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax. [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rostila, J
(2004) Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In F. Karlson (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian conference of linguistics. http://​www​.ling​.helsinki​.fi​/kielitiede​/20scl​/Rostila​.pdf.
Selkirk, E.O
(1977) Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In P. Culicover, A. Akmajian, & T. Wasow (Eds.), Formal Syntax (pp. 283–316). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L
(2012) Investigating the emergence of the definite article in Old English: About categorization, gradualness and constructions. Folia Linguistica Historica, 33, 175–213.Google Scholar
Sowka-Pietraszewska, K
(2012) On the development of a prepositional object construction with give verbs, motion verbs and Latinate verbs in English. eVarieng 10. http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/journal​/volumes​/10​/sowka​-pietraszewska/
Sweetser, E.E
(1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley linguistics society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp. 389–405). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(2008a) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development-Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b) 'All that he endeavoured to prove was ...': On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts. In R. Cooper, & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution (pp. 143–177). [Communication, Mind, and Language, 1]. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
(2010) Grammaticalization. In S. Luraghi, & V. Bubenik (Eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics (pp. 269–283). London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
(2012) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 221–255). [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics, 76]. Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In E.C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). [Typological Studies in Language, 90]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics, 6]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G
(2008a) Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the impersonal construction. In S.M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–326). [Topics in English Linguistics, 61]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale, & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). [Topics in English linguistics, 57]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010) Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 51–72). [Studies in Language Companion Series, 119]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 21 other publications

Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff. Crossref logo
Colleman, Timothy
2016. A reflection on constructionalization and constructional borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the ‘time’-away construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Diewald, Gabriele
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 278 ff. Crossref logo
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021.  In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Flach, Susanne
2020.  In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 46 ff. Crossref logo
Giacalone Ramat, Anna
2019. Degrees of grammaticalization and measure constructions in Italian. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 54:2 ► pp. 257 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin
2018.  In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Hoffmann, Thomas
2020. Speakers are creative, within limits — a response to Peter Uhrig. Cognitive Semiotics 13:1 Crossref logo
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu
2018.  In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 381 ff. Crossref logo
Lu, Xiaolong
2022. The constructionalization of antonymous compounds. Concentric. Studies in Linguistics 48:1 ► pp. 30 ff. Crossref logo
Noël, Dirk
2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 39 ff. Crossref logo
Orqueda, Verónica, Silvana Arriagada & Francisca Toro
2020. Spanish [auto + V + se] constructions. Folia Linguistica 54:3 ► pp. 615 ff. Crossref logo
Orqueda, Verónica, Silvana Arriagada & Francisca Toro
2020. Spanish [auto + V + se] constructions. Folia Linguistica 54:3 ► pp. 615 ff. Crossref logo
Peltola, Rea
2021.  In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 149 ff. Crossref logo
Petré, Peter
2016. Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Portolés Lázaro, José
1970. Significado y sentidos de la construcción 'X hizo/ se marcó un Nombre propio'. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 69 ► pp. 306 ff. Crossref logo
Reinöhl, Uta & Antje Casaretto
2018. When grammaticalization does not occur. Diachronica 35:2 ► pp. 238 ff. Crossref logo
Rodríguez Rosique, Susana
2020. From Informational Status to Mitigation in Spanish Aunque Sea. Corpus Pragmatics 4:1 ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2014.  In Grammaticalization – Theory and Data [Studies in Language Companion Series, 162], ► pp. 87 ff. Crossref logo
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2014. Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1:1 ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Young, Nathan J.
2021.  In Language Variation – European Perspectives VIII [Studies in Language Variation, 25], ► pp. 182 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 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.