Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 1–12
Introduction

Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions

 | Leibniz Universität Hannover
 | Leibniz Universität Hannover
Construction grammar – most notably Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg 2006), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001) and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 2008) – has been extremely inspiring in providing tools for modelling gradience in variation and change. Verbal constructions have been investigated within the paradigm of construction grammar from a number of angles including idiomaticization processes as well as argument structure constructions (Boas 2003; Engelberg 2009; Faulhaber 2011; Goldberg 1995; Rostila 2007). Usage-based approaches (Barlow & Kemmer 2000; Bybee & Hopper 2001; Diessel 2015, 2019; Langacker 1988; Tomasello 2003) have pointed out that usage is the place to look for variation and change. Data-driven, corpus-based approaches have introduced quantitative methods for analyzing constructional functionality and variety synchronically (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003; Gries 2006; Glynn 2014) and diachronically (Hilpert 2006). These techniques have given rise to detailed studies of verbal constructions, lexicalization and idiomaticization.
This volume presents papers which in their majority have arisen in connection with the workshop “Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions”, held at the 51st SLE Annual Meeting at Tallinn, 29th August – 1st September 2018. Its focus is on verbal constructions in Germanic languages, constructional variation and degrees of polyfunctionality between lexical, idiomatic and grammaticalized usages. The major object of this volume is to investigate the conditions and interdependencies of such variations and polyfunctionalities. The theoretical and conceptual foundations of the studies united here rest upon grammaticalization theory, usage-based constructional approaches, and frame semantics, allway in combination with empirical testing. The scope of interest comprises synchronic as well as diachronic phenomena in various registers and communicative types.
Article outline
  • 1.General background
  • 2.Verbal constructions
  • 3.The contributions
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00062.int
References (44)
References
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J. (Eds.) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. [URL]
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions. Special Vol. 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven [ et al.] (Eds.), Studies on Grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D. (2021). Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven, usage-based approach. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Falster Jakobsen, L. (Eds.) (1996). Content, expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L., Herslund, M. & Falster Jakobsen, L. (2005). Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School & Roskilde University.Google Scholar
Engelberg, S. (2009). Blätter knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei Geräuschverben. In E. Winkler (Ed.), Konstruktionelle Varianz bei Verben (pp. 75–97). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. (2014). The many uses of run. Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 117–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 57–99). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (2006). Dansk Funktionel Lingvistik. NyS, 34–35, 92–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. Closs Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 11 (pp. 17–35). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–60). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181–225). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 321, 152–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch., Lima, J. Pinto de & Soares, R. (2010). Periphrastic voice with ‘see’ in Portuguese. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness (pp. 75–100). Routledge (Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, special issue, 42/1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67 1, 475–546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting grammaticalisation. The role of paradigmatic structure. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rostila, J. (2007). Konstruktionsansätze zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zitterbart, J. P. (2002). Zur korrelativen Subordination im Deutschen. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, F. (2011). Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical relations. In S. Kittilä et al. (Eds.), Case, animacy and semantic roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

DEIKUN, Oleksii
2024. Patterns of Ukrainian Translation of English Item-Based Constructions: a Case of News Headlines. Linguistic and Conceptual Views of the World :75 (1) ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.