Chapter published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Diewald, G.
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and Language Change. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2009) Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, R., Colleman, T. & Rutten, G.
(Eds.) (2014) Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C.
(2005) Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. & Arista, J. M.
(Eds.) (2009) Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A. D.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S.
(2018) Derivational morphology in flux. A case study of word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (1), 77–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Schmid, H.-J. & Faulhaber, S.
(Eds.) (2014) Constructions, Collocations, Patterns. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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 https://​linguistlist​.org​/issues​/30​/30​-2987​.html
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hüning, M. & Booij, G.
(2014) From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica, 48 (2), 579–604. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A.
(2006) Idiomatic Creativity. A Cognitive-linguistic Model of Idiom-representation and Idiom-variation in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A.
(2012) The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2014) Constructions and environments: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E.; MacClelland, J. L.
(1986) Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S.Th.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
(2011) The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society, 40, 343–372. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48 (2), 557–578. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. & Norde, M.
(2013) Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. 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. 141–179). 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva
(2019) Competition in Language Change.: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

No author info given
2022.  In Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], Crossref logo
Fleischhauer, Jens & Stefan Hartmann
2021. The emergence of light verb constructions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 135 ff. Crossref logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 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
Podhorodecka, Joanna
2021. Martin Hilpert, Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2021. Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium 6:2 ► pp. 211 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref 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. Crossref logo
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Anneliese Kuhle
2020. Recontextualization and language change. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 253 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.