Cover not available
Part of
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 141–166

Productivity and schematicity in constructional change

In Diachronic Construction Grammar, many instances of language change can be captured in terms of variation in the schematicity and productivity of constructions. These two notions are often thought to be interrelated, which suggests that they might be collapsed and treated as essentially the same property. By contrast, this paper argues that schematicity and productivity, while related, should be kept separate and considered in their own right. Cases are reported from the literature showing that the relation between schematicity and productivity is at best indirect. It is argued that a distinction should be made between the schematicity of lexical slots inside a particular construction and the schematicity of the constructional meaning itself. Only the former is directly related to productivity. The latter may or may not be, and if so, only in very specific ways that can be assessed not by looking merely at the lexical items attested in the slots of the construction, but only by examining the semantics of earlier uses in their entirety. To illustrate this idea, a case study of recent change in the abstract uses of the way-construction is reported on, in which the increasing range of abstract verbs can be related to an increase in the variety of abstract situations conceptualized as motion in uses of the construction. This is interpreted as an increase in the schematicity of the motion component of the constructional meaning.

Keywords: schematicity, productivity, constructional meaning, way-construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Diachronic Construction Grammar and constructional networks
  • 3.Productivity and schematicity
    • 3.1Schematicity
    • 3.2Productivity
    • 3.3The relation between productivity and schematicity
  • 4.Case study: Abstract uses of the way-construction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.04per
References
Baayen, H.
(1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
(2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, L.
(2011) Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Pagliuca, W.
(1985) Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Semantics, Historical Word-formation (pp. 59–83). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2012) Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word corpus of historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Disney, S.
(2009) The Grammaticalisation of be going to. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 63–82.Google Scholar
Fanego, T.
(2018) A construction of independent means: the history of the Way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics. Published online 23 April 2018. URL: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language, 64(3). 501–538. DOI logoGoogle 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 University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: 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). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2000) Metaphor and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
(2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2005) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J.-O. Östman, & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. J.
(1979) The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patten, A. L.
(2012) The English IT-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of Degree Modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jager, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1, 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G.
(1935) The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Bouso, Tamara
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. DOI logo
Brinton, Laurel J.
2024. The rise of what-general extenders in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 25:1 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
BYBEE, JOAN
2023. What Is Usage‐Based Linguistics?. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Cichosz, Anna & Sylwia Karasińska
2024. The Diachronic Development of Agency Prepositions in Old and Middle English. Journal of English Linguistics 52:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
De Kinderen, Sybren, Monika Kaczmarek-Hes & Kristina Rosenthal
2021. 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems Companion (MODELS-C), ► pp. 531 ff. DOI logo
PEREK, FLORENT
2023. Construction Grammar and Usage‐Based Theory. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2023. The semiotics of motion encoding in Early English: a cognitive semiotic analysis of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English. Semiotica 2023:251 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2021. Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. The Ditransitive Alternation in Present-Day German [Studies in Germanic Linguistics, 6], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 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.