Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 109–137

A Diasystematic Construction Grammar analysis of language change in the Afrikaans and English finite verb complement clause construction

| Universiteit van Amsterdam | North-West University
Afrikaans adopted a new formal variant of the complement clause during language contact from English, the variant that allows omission of the overt complementiser. Based on a corpus analysis of letters from the 18th century to the end of the 20th century, the forms and semantic functions of the construction in both languages are analysed and compared. Results show that the omission of the complementiser jumped from negligible frequency to an established variant before and after contact. The function of the Afrikaans complementiser clause also changes to converge with English after contact. The findings indicate that the initial complement clause constructions of Afrikaans and English would have been different in respect of form and function, but over time, the Afrikaans construction becomes close to identical to the English construction (which in turns show rather limited change over time), pointing to the gradual formation of a diaconstruction from two related idioconstructions, at least for bilingual users of these two languages.
Keywords: Diasystematic Construction Grammar, finite verb complement construction, language change, Afrikaans, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical preliminaries
  • 3.Contact and the complement construction in Afrikaans and South African English
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Corpora
    • 4.2Data extraction
    • 4.3Functional classification
    • 4.4Quantitative analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Overall frequency
    • 5.2Constructional function
  • 6.Discussion
  • ?ack?
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.05van
References
Austin, J. L.
(1962) How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D.
(1999) A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies, 1(2), 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, Ed.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T.
(2002) Verb second in Afrikaans: Is this a unitary phenomenon? Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 34, 19–69.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S.
(2018) Construction grammar and language contact: An introduction. In: H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 5–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P.
(2007) Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Changuion, A. N. E.
(1844) De Nederduitsche taal in Zuid-Afrika hersteld. [The Low German language restored in South Africa] Cape Town: Richert, Pike & Co.Google Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2018) Distributional assimilation in constructional semantics: On contact-related semantic shifts in Afrikaans three-argument constructions. In: H. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 143–177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., Feinauer, I., & Braeckeveldt, C.
(2016) Over lexicale voorkeuren in de alternantie tussen de “skoon bysin” en de “dat-bysin”: Een distinctieve collexeemanalyse. [On lexical preferences in the alternation between the skoon bysin “bare complement clause” and the dat-bysin “that-complement clause”: a distinctive collexeme analysis.] Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe / Journal of Humanities, 56(1), 117–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Deumert, A.
(2004) Language Standardization and Language Change: The dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, B. C.
(1988) The influence of English on Afrikaans. Pretoria: Serva.Google Scholar
Dor, D.
(2005) Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics, 43(2), 345–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feinauer, A. E.
(1989) Plasing in Afrikaanse afhanklike sinne. [Placement in dependent clauses in Afrikaans] South African Journal of Linguistics 7(1), 30–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) Skoon afhanklike sinne in Afrikaanse spreektaal. [Unmarked dependent clauses in spoken Afrikaans] South African Journal of Linguistics 8(3), 116–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, V., & van der Auwera, J.
(2012) What is contact-induced grammaticalization? Evidence from Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean languages. In B. Wiemer, B. Wälchi, & B. Hansen (Eds.), Grammatical replication and borrowability in language contact (pp. 381–426). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In: H. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffery, C.
(2003) On compiling a corpus of South African English. Southern African Linguistics and Language Studies, 21(4), 341–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeffery, C., & van Rooy, B.
(2004) Emphasiser now in colloquial South African English. World Englishes 23(2), 269–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearns, K.
(2007) Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 475–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsten, J.
(2019) Written Afrikaans since standardization. Lanham: Lexington.Google Scholar
Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B.
(2016) Syntactic and pragmatic transfer effects in reported-speech constructions in three contact varieties of English influenced by Afrikaans. Language Sciences 56, 118–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) A multifactorial analysis of contact-induced change in speech reporting in written South African English. English Language and Linguistics, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(2010) Principles of linguistic change: cognitive and cultural factors. (Volume 3 of Principles of linguistic change). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, R., & Wright, S.
(1986) Endogeny vs contact: ‘Afrikaans influence’ on South African English. English World-Wide 7(2), 201–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malherbe, G. H.
(1966) Die gebruik van “dat” as verbindingswoord in Afrikaans. [The use of “dat” as linking word in Afrikaans.] Unpublished MA dissertation. Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, R.
(2002) Endogeny versus contact revisited: Aspectual busy in South African English. Language Sciences, 24, 345–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) South Africa and areal linguistics. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (pp. 527–550). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ponelis, F. A.
(1979) Afrikaanse Sintaksis. [Afrikaans syntax] Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
(1993) The Development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scholtz, J. du P.
(1980) Wording en ontwikkeling van Afrikaans. [Origin and development of Afrikaans] Cape Town: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
Scott, M.
(2016) WordSmith Tools version 7, Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1975) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Günderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge, Volume 7 (pp. 344–369). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Stell, G.
(2011) Ethnicity and language variation: Grammar and code-switching in the Afrikaans speech community. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G.
(2001) Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A.
(2002) “Object complements and conversation”: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1), 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, J.
(2011) I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Merwe, H. J. J. M., & Ponelis, F. A.
(1982) Die korrekte woord: Afrikaanse taalkwessies. [The correct word: Afrikaans language issues.] (6th ed.) Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B.
(2019) Present-day Afrikaans in contact with English. In R. Hickey (Ed.), English in multilingual South Africa (pp. 241–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, B., & Kruger, H.
(2016) Faktore wat die weglating van die Afrikaanse onderskikker dat bepaal. [Factors that determine the omission of the Afrikaans subordinator dat ‘that’] Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe / Journal of Humanities, 56(1), 102–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R.
(2014) Modality on trek: Diachronic changes in written South African English across text and context. PhD dissertation, North-West University.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R., & van Rooy, B.
(2014) The development of modals of obligation and necessity in White South African English through contact with Afrikaans. Journal of English Linguistics 42(1), 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar