Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 6:1 (2019) ► pp.22–57

The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English

Towards a radically usage-based perspective on constructional attrition

| The University of Hong Kong
Starting from a traditional corpus-based investigation of an example of constructional attrition, i.e. of a sustained drop in the frequency of use of a construction in a language’s history, this paper argues that usage data which make abstraction from individual speakers can no more account for this kind of constructional change than they can for constructionalization, the creation of new constructions. A more ‘radically’ usage-based approach to diachronic construction grammar implements the cognitive commitment of this subdiscipline of cognitive linguistics and ultimately explains all constructional change with reference to individual speakers’ grammars. Since no two speakers’ experience-based constructicons are identical, it is hypothesized that, very similar to constructionalization, constructional attrition starts from interpersonal variation and the paper encourages the use of idiolectal historical corpora to find corroboration for this. The case of constructional attrition presented in descriptive detail is that of the English Deontic nci construction, which is instantiated by such forms as be compelled to, be forbidden to, be obliged to and be permitted to. Previous research established this schema to have grown in frequency and productivity from the 14th until the 18th century and the current paper documents the start of its subsequent decline with data from the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts. It goes on to ask whether a usage-based approach should stop at offering cultural explanations for such developments and proposes a more genuinely cognitive line of explanatory attack.
Keywords: diachronic construction grammar, usage-based model, constructional attrition, periphrastic modals, deontic modality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English
    • 2.1Background, problem and methodology
    • 2.2Results
      • 2.2.1Overall frequency development
      • 2.2.2Patterns diminishing in frequency
      • 2.2.3Stable patterns
      • 2.2.4Patterns augmenting in frequency
    • 2.3Summary and discussion
  • 3.Towards a radically usage-based approach to constructional attrition
    • 3.1Radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar
    • 3.2The (non-)treatment of constructional attrition in usage-based historical linguistics
    • 3.3Incorporating constructional attrition in a radically usage-based approach
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00029.noe
References

References

Barlow, M.
(2013) Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Hoffmann, T.
(Eds.) (2017) Cognitive approaches to the history of English, special issue. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K., & van Trijp, R.
(2016a) Computational construction grammar and constructional change. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 301, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K. K., & van Trijp, R.
(Eds.) (2016b) Computational construction grammar and constructional change (= Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.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
Booij, G.
(Ed.) (2018) The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
(2006) The Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide – Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, J.
(1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & Noël, D.
(2012) The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P.
(2009) Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Quasi-modals and modals in Australian English fiction 1800–1999, with comparisons across British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 7–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P., Macalinga Borlongan, A., & Yao, X.
(2014) Modality in Philippine English: A diachronic study. Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 68–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J.
(Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E. & von Mengden, F.
(Eds.) (2014) Usage-based approaches to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., & Mortelmans, T.
(Eds.) (2012) Grammaticalization and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2016) How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Disney, S.
(2016) Another visit to be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English studies, 97(8), 892–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2016) Cognitive linguistics. In S. E. F. Chipman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive science (pp. 283–299). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
(1989) The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica, 8(1–2), 143–217.Google Scholar
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? View[z]: Vienna English Working Papers, 18(2), 3–23. [Republished as Fischer 2011.]Google Scholar
(2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancil, S., Breban, T. & Vincento Lozano, J.
(Eds.) (2018) New trends on grammaticalization and language change. 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
(2017) Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 49–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. E.
(Eds.) (2017) The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp. 13–59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(2013) Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In J. I. Marín-Arrese, M. Carretero Lapeyre, J. Arús Hita & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 95–115). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. & Smith, N.
(2009) Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mailhammer, R.
(Ed.) (2013) Lexical and structural etymology: Beyond word histories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J.
(1995) Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics, 33(2), 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech, 71 (4), 339–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D.
(2008) The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36 (4), 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Grammaticalization in diachronic construction grammar. In M. A. Furtado da Cunha, E. Balduíno Bispo & J. Romerito Silva (Eds.), Anais do IV Seminário Internacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática e XVII Seminário Nacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática: Teoria da gramaticalização e gramática de construções (pp. 5–12). Natal, RN, Brazil: UFRN.Google Scholar
(2016) For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 301, 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua, 1991, 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M.
In preparation). An introduction to diachronic construction morphology. Ms.
Norde, M. & Van de Velde, F.
(Eds.) (2016) Exaptation and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(1990) Modality and the English modals. 2nd Edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(2003) Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 1–17). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, M. R.
(1983) Modal expressions in English. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 31, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., & Mantlik, A.
(2015) Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs
(2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G.
(Eds.) (2018) Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, B., & Wasserman, R.
(2014) Do the modals of Black and White South African English converge? Journal of English Linguistics, 42(1), 51–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R.
(2016) The evolution of case grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westney, P.
(1995) Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(2006) English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winters, M. E.
(2010) Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (pp. 3–27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Psycho-historical linguistics: its context and potential. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 413–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-Froemel, E.
(Eds.) (2019) Cognitive contact linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-induced variation and change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Bardenstein, Ruti & Avi Gvura
2023. Motion verbs and future constructions: the case of Hebrew omed le-V ‘standing (up) to-V’/‘(be) about to-V’. Journal of Pragmatics 218 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2021. A constructional account of the loss of the adverse avertive schema in Mandarin Chinese. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2022. Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2023. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2023. Chapter 5. Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. A constructional account of the loss of the adverse avertive schema in Mandarin Chinese. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2023. 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.