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. 1–42

Introduction

The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The nodes
    • 2.1The nature of the node
    • 2.2Node creation vs node-internal changes
  • 3.The links in the network
    • 3.1Vertical links
    • 3.2Horizontal links
    • 3.3Diachronic change as node-external reconfiguration of the network
  • 4.Beyond current network models
  • 5.Range of phenomena
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int
References (96)
References
Audring, J. (accepted). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure.
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S. (Eds.), (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and Language Change. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2009). Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in Usage-based Theories. What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford.Google Scholar
(2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Höder, S. (Eds.). (2018). Constructions in Contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, R., Colleman, T. & Rutten, G. (Eds.). (2014). Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. & Arista, J. M. (Eds.). (2009). Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003a). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Vol. 2, (pp. 145–167). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003b). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions Special 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J. (Eds.). (2018). Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2013). Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment and the matching-problem. In C. Cain & G. Russom (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language III: Managing chaos: Strategies for identifying change in English (pp. 1–37). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Meola, C. (2000). Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Präpositionen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011). Grammaticalization and Language Acquisition. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 130–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2015). 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.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Wiley.Google Scholar
Elman, J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: a Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L. (2019). Categoriality in Language Change. The Case of the English Gerund. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. 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
Frank, S. L., Bod, R. & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 22, 4522–4531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gell-Mann, M. (1992). Complexity and complex adaptive systems. In J. Hawkins & M. Gell-Mann (Eds.), The evolution of human languages (pp. 3–18). New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approaches to language. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain Me This. Creativity, Competition, and the partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S.Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S. (2018). Derivational morphology in flux. A case study of word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (1), 77–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Schmid, H.-J. & Faulhaber, S. (Eds.). (2014). Constructions, Collocations, Patterns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hieber, D. (2018). Category genesis in Chitimacha. A constructional approach. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.),. Category Change from a Constructional Perspective (pp. 15–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2018). Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In E. Coussé, J. Olofsson, & P. Andersson (Eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–39). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Audring, J. (2019). Paradigmatic Relations. Workshop proposal for ICCG 11 Antwerp [URL]
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: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, M. & Booij, G. (2014). From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica, 48 (2), 579–604. 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.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Audring, J. (2018). Sister schemas in morphology and syntax. Paper at the ICCG10, Paris, France.
Keysar, B. & Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the Transparency of Idioms: Can One Keep a Secret by Spilling the Beans? Journal of Memory and Language, 34(1), 89–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013a). Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency. NIHIN studies. Freiburg: Rombach.Google Scholar
(2013b). From Reduction to Emancipation: Is Gonna a Word? In H. Hasselgård, J. Ebeling & S. Oksefjell Ebeling (Eds.), Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis (pp. 133–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F. & Audring, J. (2018). Construction Morphology. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language, 14 (2), 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In G. Booij (ed.) The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology (pp. 197–240). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. (2012). The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2014). Constructions and environments: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E.; MacClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., Luzondo Oyón, A. & Pérez Sobrino, P. (Eds.). (2017). Constructing Families of Constructions. Analytical perspectives and theoretical challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.). (2016). Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2015). Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Deutsche Komplementsatzstrukturen: Synchrones System und diachrone Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article Emergence in Old English. A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Let’s talk face to face about NPN constructions in English. Paper at the ICLC 15, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Steels, L. (Ed.). (2011). Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S.Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2011). The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society, 40, 343–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The construction network reconfiguration hypothesis. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and Language Change (pp. 21–43). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional Approaches to English Grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48 (2), 557–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Change in category membership from the perspective of construction grammar. A commentary. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category Change from a Constructional Perspective (pp. 291–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. & Norde, M. (2013). Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. DOI logoGoogle 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. 141–179). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E. & Vanderbauwhede, G. (Eds.). (2018). Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. & Gries, S. T. (2016). Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. (2019). Competition in Language Change.: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (21)

Cited by 21 other publications

Alba-Salas, Josep
2024. Rising datives: tomar ‘take’ expressions with nouns of ‘emotion’ and constructional network reconfiguration in Spanish. Folia Linguistica 58:s45-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili, Hubert Cuyckens & Fangqiong Zhan
2024. Language change in a constructional network: the emergence of Mandarin [bi N hai N] comparative constructions. Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Schneider, Stefan
2024. Construct types in language change. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:2 ► pp. 304 ff. DOI logo
Setzke, Rafael Soto
2024. Linguistic paradigms as cognitive entities: A domain-general approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 12:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Bloom, Barthe
2023. Chapter 2. Life at the intersection. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hölzl, Andreas
2023. Diachronic changes in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena & Vanessa Stöber
2022. Verbo-Nominal Constructions withkommen‘come’ in German. Constructions and Frames 14:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems
2022. ‘Wonder’ Nouns and the Development of a Mirative Constructional Network: An Exercise in Semiotic Diachronic Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Feng
2022. Review of Diessel (2019): The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:2 ► pp. 558 ff. DOI logo
Fleischhauer, Jens & Stefan Hartmann
2021. The emergence of light verb constructions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021. Modality in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Podhorodecka, Joanna
2021. Martin Hilpert, Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2021. Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium 6:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Andreas Baumann
2021. Of absent mothers, strong sisters and peculiar daughters: The constructional network of English NPN constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 97 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
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Anneliese Kuhle
2020. Recontextualization and language change. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 253 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 10 november 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.