Chapter published in:
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 277–315

Paradigms lost – paradigms regained

Paradigms as hyper-constructions

Based on Diewald (2009, 2015a, 2017), it is claimed that the notion of paradigm needs to be introduced into constructional accounts, as otherwise the essence of grammaticalization cannot be properly captured in construction grammar. It is suggested to define grammatical paradigms as a new node type, a “hyper-construction”, which represents the categorical, non-gradient specifics of grammatical meaning. This line of argumentation is supported by a discussion of changes in the German and English modality, tense, determiner, and number paradigms. Independent arguments for the psychological reality of paradigms come from the study of implicational relations in inflectional morphology and diachronic phenomena such as layering, suppletion, and paradigm pressure.
Keywords: paradigm, paradigmatic relation, paradigmaticization, grammaticalization, grammatical category, gradience, hyper-construction, constructional link, constructional network, inheritance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Terminological clarifications
    • 2.1Grammaticalization versus grammatical change
    • 2.2Grammaticalization versus constructionalization and constructional change
    • 2.3Paradigmatization as a crucial feature of grammaticalization
  • 3.Gradience and categorical distinctions
  • 4.Paradigms lost: The status of paradigms in constructional models
  • 5.Paradigms regained: Integrating paradigmatic knowledge into the constructicon
    • 5.1Paradigm ≠ paradigmatic relation
    • 5.2The syntagmatic extension of paradigms
    • 5.3The paradigm as a holistic entity / a hyper-construction
  • 6.Observations concerning the existence of paradigms in language
    • 6.1Implicational relations
    • 6.2Layering and suppletion
    • 6.3Paradigm pressure
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die
References
Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R.
(2009) Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition (pp. 54–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P.
(2015) Inflectional paradigms. In M. Baerman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection (pp. 87–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, W.
(2014) Overt and hidden complexity – two types of complexity and their implications. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 50, 127–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2014) Zur Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des Deutschen. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 37–63). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2016) Construction Morphology. In A. Hippisley, & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Budts, S., & Petré, P.
(2020, this volume). Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W.
(1994) The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, 1, 1–28.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Per-spective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Radical Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale, & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, G.
(1991) Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, Special Volume 1.Google Scholar
(2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. ZGL, 37, 445–468.Google Scholar
(2010) On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues (pp. 17–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Review of: E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 137, 108–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames, 7, 218–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Auf- und Abbau linguistischer Komplexität Grammatikalisierungsprozessen. In M. Hennig (Ed.), Linguistische Komplexität – ein Phantom? (pp. 223–252). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D.
to appear] Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven usage-based approach. In M. Hilpert & B. Cappelle Eds. Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar Amsterdam Benjamins (Constructional Approaches to Language)
Diewald, G., & Habermann, M.
(2005) Die Entwicklung von werden & Infinitiv als Futurgrammem: Ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen Faktoren. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 229–250). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E.
(2010) Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Wischer, I.
(2013) Markers of Futurity in Old High German and Old English: A Comparative Corpus-Based Study. In G. Diewald, L. Kahlas-Tarkka, & I. Wischer (Eds.), Comparative Studies in Early Germanic Languages. With a Focus on Verbal Categories (pp. 195–216). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2004) Constructions Grammar. A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Constructions Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York [etc.]: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1998) The functional approach to grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 1 (pp. 41–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harnisch, R.
(2006) Dieser freundlicher Streit mit Rivalem und andern welchen Leuten. Über aktuelle Ungewöhnlichkeiten und latente Möglichkeiten in der Nominalphrase. ZGL, 34, 394–405.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2000) Periphrasis. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 1 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft) (pp. 654–664). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
(2003) Grammaticalization. In B. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 575–601). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 458–475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Mair, C.
(2015) Grammatical change. In D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 180–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(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). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
(2016) Morphological schemas. Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 467–493. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: the What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75, 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaznelson, S. D.
(1974) Sprachtypologie und Sprachdenken. Ins Deutsche übertragen und herausgegeben von H. Zikmund. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change. Lingua e Stile, 20, 303–318.Google Scholar
(2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization. ZGL, 32, 152–187.Google Scholar
(2015) Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Classics in Linguistics 1. Language Science Press [First edition 1982] CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E.
(1992) Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000) Artikel und Aspekt. Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin, NY: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
(2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K.
(1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D.
(2007) Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14, 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, D.
(2000) Prinzipien der Irregularisierung: eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, H.
(1920) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Radtke, P.
(1998) Die Kategorien des deutschen Verbs. Zur Semantik grammatischer Kategorien. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
(1983/1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. [Engl. (1983): Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. Duckworth, London: Open Court, La Salle, III].Google Scholar
Seiler, H.
(1967) On paradigmatic and syntagmatic similiarity. Lingua, 18, 35–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L.
(2018) Article Emergence in Old English. A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2014) Toward a constructional framework for research on language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1, 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Towards a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 51–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2014) On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48, 557–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.
(2016) Regeln versus Muster. Der Erwerb flektierter Formen in DaZ: der Plural deutscher Substantive. In A. Bittner, & C. Spieß (Eds.), Formen und Funktionen: Morphosemantik und grammatische Konstruktion (pp. 193–213). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werner, O.
(1994) Auch Paradigmen entstehen und vergehen. In K.-M. Köpcke (Ed.), Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie (pp. 5–28). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Audring, Jenny
2022. Advances in Morphological Theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 39 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
Diewald, Gabriele & Katja Politt
2020. Grammatical categories as paradigms in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 42 ff. Crossref logo
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021.  In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 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.