Cover not available
Part of
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 43–73

Grammaticalisation cut short

A diachronic constructional view on English posture verbs

This article provides a corpus-based diachronic constructional analysis of the three English cardinal posture verbs (hence CPVs) sit, stand and lie. Contrary to their equivalents in genetically related languages, the English CPVs have not grammaticalised into locative, progressive, or habitual markers or into copulas. The data reveal some degree of grammaticalisation in the earlier stages which suggests that the grammaticalisation was cut short. The paper evaluates Newman’s (2009) hypothesis that the English CPVs did not further grammaticalise because of their increased use to refer to a dynamic event of getting into a sitting, standing or lying posture. The data also reveal that two (more strongly grammaticalised) copula constructions lingered on much longer, thereby constituting grammaticalised ‘islands’, especially in idiomatic uses.
Keywords: posture verbs, semantic bleaching, grammaticalisation, copular constructions, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The unexpected path of English Posture Verbs
    • 2.1 From posture to location and beyond
    • 2.2 From location verb to existential copula
    • 2.3Possible causes for the demise of English posture verbs
  • 3.Corpora and method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Locational uses
    • 4.2Copular constructions
      • 4.2.1Quantitative analysis
      • 4.2.2 Qualitative analysis
    • 4.3Putting Newman’s hypothesis to the test
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c3
References (41)
References
Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. R. (1992). On Frequency, transparency, and productivity. In G. E. Booij, & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29, 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change: Research Surveys in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. (2018). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal, G., & Namer, F. (2015). La fréquence en morphologie: pour quels usages? Langages, 197, 47–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diller, H., De Smet, H., & Tyrkkö, J. (2011). A European database of descriptors of English electronic texts. The European English Messenger, 19, 21–35.Google Scholar
Dunn, M., Margetts, A., Meira, S., & Terrill, A. (2007). Four languages from the lower end of the typology of locative predication. Linguistics, 45, 873–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., Beitel, D., Harrington, M., & Sanders, P. (1994). Taking a stand on the meanings of stand: Bodily experience as motivation for polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 11, 231–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. (2009). Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language how English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 221–244.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization. Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its components and its fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. A. (1999). On ‘sit’/’stand’/’lie’ auxiliation. Linguistics, 37, 191–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kvist Darnell, U. (2008). Pseudosamordningar i svenska, särskilt sådana med verben sitta, ligga och stå. PhD dissertation. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2002). The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. In J. Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying (pp. 103–139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005a). Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17, 183–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005b). Motion and location: toward a cognitive typology. In G. Girard-Gillet (Ed.), Parcours linguistiques. Domaine anglais (pp. 223–244). Publications de l’Université St Etienne.Google Scholar
(2005c). Aspectually induced lexical loss in English. In First International AFLiCo Conference From gram to mind: grammar as cognition. Université de Bordeaux 3, France, 20–22 May.Google Scholar
(2006). Caused posture: experiential patterns emerging from corpus research. In Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (Eds.) Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis (pp. 261–296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2017). A Tale of Two Progressives. In A. Makarova, Dickey, S. M. & Divjak, D. S. (Eds.) Thoughts on Language: Studies in Cognitive Linguistics in Honor of Laura A. Janda (pp. 175–194). Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M., & Perrez, J. (2010). On the use of posture verbs by French-speaking learners of Dutch: a corpus-based study. Cognitive Linguistics 21, 315–347.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2014). Une grammaticalisation ratée? Une étude diachronique de stand en anglais. Anglophonia, 18. [URL]; 10.4000/anglophonia.327.
(2015). Zit je te denken of ben je aan het piekeren? Persistentie in het synchrone gebruik van de PREP- en POS-progressiefconstructies in het Nederlands [Persistence in the synchronic use of PREP- and POS progressives in Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20, 5–36.Google Scholar
Maisak, T. A. (2002). Tipologija grammatikalizacii konstrukcij s glagolami dvizhenija i glagolami pozicii [Grammaticalization paths of motion and posture verbs]. Philological Faculty Dissertation, Completed Degree, Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2002). A cross-linguistic overview of Posture verbs ‘sit’, ‘stand’ and ‘lie’ In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). English posture verbs: an experientially grounded approach. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 30–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J., & Rice, S. (2006). Patterns of usage for English sit , stand, and lie: A cognitively-inspired exploration in corpus linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 351–396.Google Scholar
O. E. D. (1989). Oxford English Dictionary. Electronic edition (also available online).Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2012). General Productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 28–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). EEBO Corp Concodancer 1.5. [URL].
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schröder, A. (2011). On the productivity of verbal prefixation in English: synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Serra Borneto, C. (1996). Liegen and stehen in German: A study in horizontality and verticality. In E. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods (pp. 458–505). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Volume 1. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85, 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1, 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, J. (1984). Sitting, Standing, Lying in Dutch: A Cognitive Approach to the Distribution of the Verbs Zitten, Staan, and Liggen. In J. Van Oosten, & J. Snapper (Eds.), Dutch linguistics at Berkeley (pp. 137–160). Berkeley: UCB.Google Scholar
Yamagushi, T., & Newman, J. (2002). Action and state interpretation of ‘sit’ in Japenese and English. In J. Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Lesuisse, Mégane & Maarten Lemmens
2024. Looking differently at locative events: the cognitive impact of linguistic preferences. Language and Cognition 16:3 ► pp. 733 ff. DOI logo
Lesuisse, Mégane
2022. Exploring the conceptualisation of locative events in French, English, and Dutch: Insights from eye-tracking on two memorisation tasks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Newman, John
2022. Experiential motivation and the linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying. WIREs Cognitive Science 13:4 DOI logo
Fanego, Teresa
2020. On the History of the English Progressive Construction Jane came whistling down the street. Journal of English Linguistics 48:4 ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2024. 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.