Article published In:
Constructions and FramesVol. 9:1 (2017) ► pp.41–69
From manipulation to social interaction
Change in the use of lay in initiating bets
This paper is about constructional change that is brought about through change in non-linguistic practice. The English construction of interest is one that speakers use to initiate bets with their addressees. Its verb is lay, its subject is the speaker, and its direct object is the stake the speaker proposes to risk. It is argued that the motivation for the use of lay comes partly from the practice of laying down stakes when making bets. However, it is shown that over the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries this practice declines, weakening the basis for a physical interpretation and leading hearers to attend instead to the speaker-addressee relation. Concurrently, this relation is increasingly expressed through the use of a dative argument. This development is discussed in relation to Ariel et al.’s (2015) account of added datives.
Keywords: prominent relation, non-linguistic practice, action-naming, semantic change, constructional change, added dative
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Betting
- 3.The lay staking construction
- 4.Motivations for the use of lay
- 4.1Concrete motivation
- 4.2Abstract motivation
- 5.Change affecting the speaker-addressee relation
- 5.1Data
- 5.2Decline in the laying down of stakes
- 5.3Increase in argument expression of the addressee
- 5.4Change in meaning and the prominence of relations between participants
- 5.5Added datives
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References
Ariel, M.
(1990) Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.
Ariel, M., Dattner, E., Du Bois, J. W., & Linzen, T.
Berger, R.
(1940) From hostage to contract. Illinois Law Review, 35(3), 281–292.
Bosworth, J.
(Ed. Northcote Toller, T.) (1898) An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bybee, J., & Pagliuca, W.
(1985) Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation (pp. 59–83). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.. 
Bybee, J., & Torres Cacoullos, R.
(2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, W.
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. W.
(2003) Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 21 (pp. 47–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, C. J.
(1977) The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 8: Grammatical relations (pp. 59–81). New York: Academic Press.
Fotion, N.
(1981) I’ll bet you $10 that betting is not a speech act. In H. Parret, M. Sbisà, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Proceedings of the conference on pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979 (pp. 211–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D.
(2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Givón, T.
(1975) Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp. 47–112). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look at its fringes and its components (pp. 19–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lambrecht, K.
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W.
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Létoublon, F.
(1991) Promisi per iocum. In R. Coleman (Ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics: Selected papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T.
(1994) Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice.
Stern, G.
(1968 [1931]) Meaning and change of meaning. With special reference to the English language. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.
Toller, T. N.
(1921) An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E. C.
(1991) English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation (pp. 387–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Verhagen, A.
(2007) Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.