Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 143–177

Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics

On contact-related semantic shifts in Afrikaans three-argument constructions

This paper brings a contact linguistic perspective to the investigation of variation and change in the semantic structures of schematic argument structure constructions, i.e. diachronic constructional semasiology. The empirical focus is on three clusters of ongoing change in the lexical and semantic possibilities of three-argument constructions in Afrikaans that can plausibly be related to interlingual identification with formally and functionally similar English argument structure constructions. The main theoretical argument is that the concept of distributional assimilation as introduced by Gast & van der Auwera (2012) can be fruitfully extended to constructional semantics.

Keywords: distributional assimilation, polysemy copying, constructional semantics, diachronic constructional semasiology, ditransitive construction, secundative construction, Afrikaans, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
    • 2.1Diachronic constructional semasiology
    • 2.2Distributional assimilation
  • 3.The contact situation Afrikaans–English
  • 4.Three possible cases of contact-related change in Afrikaans three-argument constructions
    • 4.1Introducing the English and Afrikaans ditransitive constructions
    • 4.2‘Ballistic motion’ uses
    • 4.3Dispossession uses: A case study of ontneem (‘take away’)
    • 4.4Secundative patterns with verbs of giving
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.05col
References
HAT=Luther, J., Pheiffer, F., & Gouws, R. H.
(Eds.) (2015) Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse taal [Desk dictionary of the Afrikaans language]. 6th edition. Cape Town: Pearson.Google Scholar
SAAZ=Müller, D., & Pistor, S.
(2011) Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z [Write Afrikaans from A to Z]. Cape Town: Pharos.Google Scholar
WAT=Schoonees, P. C. et al.
(Eds.) (1950– ) Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal [Dictionary of the Afrikaans language]. Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker & Stellenbosch: Bureau van die WAT.Google Scholar
WNT=M. De Vries, L. Te Winkel et al.
(Eds.) (1882–1998) Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal [Dictionary of the Dutch Language]. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff etc.Google Scholar
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
(2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.1–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosman, N.
(2013) Eenders en anders: die leksikons van Afrikaans en Nederlands in die een-en-twintigste eeu–’n loodsstudie [Similar but different: the lexicons of Afrikaans and Dutch in the twentyfirst century–a preliminary study]. Tydskrif vir Letterkunde, 50, 135–154.Google Scholar
Carstens, W. A. M.
(2011) Norme vir Afrikaans [Norms for Afrikaans]. 5th edition. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2009) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction: A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–220.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Lectal variation in constructional semantics: “Benefactive” ditransitives in Dutch. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp.191–221). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Ditransitive verbs and the Ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59, 387–410.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.215–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B.
(2008) Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive . Functions of Language, 15, 187–215.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 183–210.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & Noël, D.
(2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Tracing the history of deontic NCI patterns in Dutch: A case of polysemy copying. In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker, & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics (pp.213–235). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B., Bloem, A., & Colleman, T.
(2012) Transfer verbs with prepositional themes in English, Dutch and French: A contrastive analysis.’ In M. Van Peteghem, P. Lauwers, E. Tobback, A. Demol, & L. De Wilde (Eds), Le verbe en verve: Réflexions sur la syntaxe et la sémantique verbales: en hommage à Dominique Willems à l’occasion de son éméritat (pp.5–24). Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, L.
(2015) A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC + DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11, 225–254.Google Scholar
Delorge, M.
(2009) De relatie tussen betekenis en structuur bij privatieve en receptieve werkwoorden in het Nederlands [The relation between meaning and structure with verbs of dispossession and reception in Dutch]. (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ghent University.Google Scholar
Delorge, M., Plevoets, K., & Colleman, T.
(2014) Competing ‘transfer’ constructions in Dutch: The case of ont-verbs. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.39–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deumert, A.
(2004) Language standardization and language change: The dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) The unbearable lightness of being bilingual: English–Afrikaans language contact in South Africa. Language Sciences, 27, 113–135.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dhondt, A.
(2014) Diachroon onderzoek naar de dubbelobjectconstructie [A diachronic investigation of the double object construction]. (Unpublished BA dissertation). Ghent University.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. C.
(1991) The influence of English on Afrikaans. 2nd edition. Pretoria: Academica.Google Scholar
(1995) Language contact and linguistic change: The influence of English on Afrikaans. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp.222–229). Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Fried, M.
(2013) Principles of constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.419–437). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gast, V., & van der Auwera, J.
(2012) What is contact-induced grammaticalization? Evidence from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean languages. In B. Wiemer, B. Wälchli, & B. Hansen (Eds.), Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact (pp.381–426). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1997)  Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–356.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C., & Van Bezooijen, R.
(2006) Mutual comprehensibility of written Afrikaans and Dutch: Symmetrical or asymmetrical? Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21, 543–557.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M.
(1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
(1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2009) Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In M. Haspelmath, & U. Tadmor (Eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook (pp.35–54). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1950) The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26, 210–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2003) On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language, 27, 529–572.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridige: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word Formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp.137–152). Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., & Mukherjee, J.
(2007) Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 32, 5–24.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The Way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B.
(2010) Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In A. Malchukov, M. Haspelmath, & B. Comrie (Eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook (pp.1–64). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Margetts, A., & Austin, P.
(2007) Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics, 45, 393–451.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y., & Sakel, J.
(2007) Investigating the mechanisms of pattern-replication. Studies in Language, 31, 829–865.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolaï, R.
(2007) Language contact: A blind spot in ‘things linguistic’. Journal of Language Contact, 1, 12–21.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, F. A.
(1993) The development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Levey, S.
(2010) Contact-induced grammatical change. In P. Auer, & J. E. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and space – An international handbook of linguistic variation: Volume 1 – Theories and methods (pp.391–419). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Raidt, E. H.
(1975) Nuwe aktualiteit van ’n ou polemiek [New topicality of an old controversy]. In E. H. Raidt (Ed.), Historiese taalkunde: Studies oor die geskiedenis van Afrikaans (pp.33–52). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.Google Scholar
(1983) Einführung in Geschichte und Struktur des Afrikaans. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Roberge, P.
(1995) The formation of Afrikaans. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.) Language and social history: Studies in South African sociolinguistics (pp.68–88). Cape Town: David Philip.Google Scholar
Spies, J.
(1988) Ons Taalgereedskap: Bros is nie bros nie [Our language tools: Bros is not bros]. Die Burger 19/12/1988.Google Scholar
de Stadler, L.
(1995a) The indirect object in Afrikaans. South African Journal of Linguistics, 13, 26–38.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995b) The indirect object in Afrikaans: A schematic network. South African Journal of Linguistics, 13, 100–107.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The indirect object in Afrikaans. In W. Van Belle, & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Volume 1: Descriptive studies (pp.251–288). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2011) Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus. In M. Brdar, S. T. Gries, & M. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp.257–290). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stell, G.
(2009) Codeswitching and ethnicity: Grammatical types of codeswitching in the Afrikaans speech community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 199, 103–128.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Berg, R.
(2005) Standard Afrikaans and the different faces of ‘Pure Afrikaans’ in the twentieth century. In N. Langer, & W. Davies (Eds.), Linguistic purism in the Germanic languages (pp.144–165). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Horst, J.
(2008) Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [A history of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Van Houwelingen, F., & Carstens, A.
(1998) “Nederlandismes” in HAT3 [“Dutchisms” in HAT3]. Literator, 19, 1–12.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B., & Van der Doel, R.
(2011) Dutch and Afrikaans as post-pluricentric languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 212, 1–22.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel.
1953 Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2021. Widening the scope. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
van Rooy, Bertus
2021. A Diasystematic Construction Grammar analysis of language change in the Afrikaans and English finite verb complement clause construction. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Soziolinguistische Bibliographie europäischer Länder für 2018Sociolinguistic Bibliography of European Countries for 2018Bibliographie sociolinguistique des pays européens pour 2018. Sociolinguistica 34:1 ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.