A growing number of studies on language change adopt Construction Grammar as a theoretical framework so that there is now a developing field of Diachronic Construction Grammar. As is typical of any emerging linguistic theory, many aspects of Diachronic Construction Grammar are still not clarified explicitly, or they are understood in different ways by different researchers. There is thus a need for some meta-theoretical reflection. This paper identifies three questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar that are currently unresolved. These three questions pertain to the status of constructions as mental representations of language, the emergence of new constructions, and the way in which nodes and connections are viewed as parts of the constructional network. By airing these questions, this paper hopes to stimulate further discussion.
Article outline
1.Introduction
2.
What is investigated in Diachronic Construction Grammar?
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Gildea, S., & Sommerer, L. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382.
Brown, D., Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M., Hippisley, A., & Timberlake, A. (1996). Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics, 34, 53–107.
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Volume II (pp. 145–167). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J. L., & Beckner, C. (2010). Usage-based theory. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 827–855). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corbett, G. G., & Fraser, N. M. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 113–142.
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL].
De Smet, H. (2013). Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Evans, V. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics. In S. E.F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Science (pp. 283–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone. Language, 64, 501–538.
Fraser, N. M., & Corbett, G. G. (1997). Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua, 103(1), 25–57.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gurney, K. (1997). An Introduction to Neural Networks. London: Routledge.
Heine, B. (1997). Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2015a). Historical Linguistics. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 346–365). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hilpert, M. (2015b). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36.
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment, Memory and Automaticity. The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning (pp. 57–74). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R. (2015). Review of Rolf Kreyer, The nature of rules, regularities and units in language: A network model of the language system and of language use. Mouton De Gruyter, 2014. Journal of Linguistics, 51(3), 692–696.
Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. E. (Eds.). (2017). The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janda, R. D. (2001). Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences, 23(2), 265–340.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. (1999). Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Langacker, R. (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive, Radical, and Less So. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction (pp. 101–159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., & Heltoft, L. (2015). Grammaticalisation as paradigmatisation. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalization Research (pp. 261–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Petré, P. (2014). Constructions and environments: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination. What is it and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.
Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.). (2017). Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: how we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Boston: APA/Walter de Gruyter.
van der Auwera, J., Van Olmen, D., & Dumon, D. (2015). Grammaticalization. In E. Dabrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 634–650). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
von Mengden, F., & Coussé, E. (2014). The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In E. Coussé, & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wellens, P., van Trijp, R., & Beuls, K. (2013). Fluid Construction Grammar for Historical and Evolutionary Linguistics. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 127–132.
2025. Word Formation Change in Word Grammar. In Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency, ► pp. 104 ff.
Bouso, Tamara, Marianne Hundt & Laetitia Van Driessche
2024. A sisterhood of constructions? A structural priming approach to modelling links in the network of Objoid Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 313 ff.
2022. Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction. English Studies 103:8 ► pp. 1334 ff.
Daugs, Robert
2022. English modal enclitic constructions: a diachronic, usage-based study of’dand’ll. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 221 ff.
Jiang, Canzhong & Xu Wen
2022. Constructional network at work in second language acquisition. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 7:1
2022. The Development of the Chinese Monosyllabic Motion-Directional Constructions: A Diachronic Constructional Approach. In Chinese Lexical Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13250], ► pp. 353 ff.
2021. Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:3 ► pp. 525 ff.
2019. De la consecución a la contraexpectación: la construccionalización delograr/conseguir+ infinitivo. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 383 ff.
[no author supplied]
2019. Introduction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 263 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.