Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 9:1 (2022) ► pp. 1–30

Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction

A radically usage-based exploratory investigation

| The University of Hong Kong

This paper addresses the question of the (speaker-level) ‘cognitive how’ of (language-level) constructional attrition, defined as a systemic decrease in the occurrence of a construction in the history of a language. Presenting and analysing data from an historical idiolectal corpus on the frequency development in individual speakers’ use of a partially schematic construction instantiated by such types as be obliged to and be permitted to, it offers a first attempt to measure whether a general decline in the frequency of this construction can also be observed to be an internal development during a speaker’s lifespan. The results confirm this to be the case in a sizeable group of speakers and the paper provides an initial insight into how this may contribute to a genuinely cognitive account of the speaker-external development.

Keywords: diachronic construction grammar, usage-based model, individual differences, constructional attrition, periphrastic modals, deontic modality, Late Modern English, Corpus of English Novels
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and problem
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequency averages and ranges
    • 4.2Frequency development
      • 4.2.1Authors using the Deontic nci construction less in later life
      • 4.2.2Authors using the Deontic nci construction more in later life
      • 4.2.3Authors using the Deontic nci construction as much in late as in early career
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00088.noe
References
Anthonissen, L.
(2020) Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics, 31 (2), 309–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) 2015 Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M.
(2013) Individual differences and Usage-based Grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A.
(2005) Social networks and historical sociolinguistics: Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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
(2020) What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31 (2), 251–278. 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
Kranich, S., & Breban, T.
(Eds.) (2021) Lost in change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1994) Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T., Raumolin-Brunberg, H., & Mannila, H.
(2011) The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change, 23 (1), 1–43. 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
(2016) For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30 (1), 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua, 199 1, 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English: Towards a radically usage-based perspective on constructional attrition. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6 (1), 22–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D., & Colleman, T.
(2021) Diachronic construction grammar. In Xu Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 662–675). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2010) The functions of weorðan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English Language and Linguistics, 14 (3), 457–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F.
(2018) The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94 (4), 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H.
(2009) Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen. In A. Nurmi, M. Nevala & M. Palander-Collin (Eds.), The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800) (pp. 165–196). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, K.
(2019) The statistics of obsolescence: Purpose subordinators in Late Modern English. Strasbourg/Basel/Freiburg: EUCOR – The European Campus/Universität Basel/Uni Freiburg.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G.
(2005) Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 21. (pp. 1002–1013). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3 (1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H., & Mantlik, A.
(2015) Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133 (4), 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L.
(2020) Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In L. Sommerer, & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks: Advances in diachronic construction grammar (pp. 70–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonti, S. A., & D’Arcy, A.
(2007) Frequency and variation in the community grammar: Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19 1, 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G.
(2008) Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. M. Fitzmaurice & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, V.
(2019) Illuminating variation: Individual differences in entrenchment of multi-word units. Amsterdam: LOT (Landelijke Onderzoeksschool Taalwetenschap/ Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Google Scholar
Verhagen, V., & Backus, A.
(2010) Individual differences in the perception of entrenchment of multiword units: Evidence from a magnitude estimation task. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 84/85 (1), 155–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, S. E., & Sankoff, G.
(2011) Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change, 23 (3), 275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar