Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 1:1 (2014) ► pp.3–21

Toward a constructional framework for research on language change

| Department of Linguistics, Stanford University

A construction grammar approach is presented to changes to language as a system that is both communicative and cognitive (Traugott and Trousdale 2013). Constructionalization is defined as the development of formnew-meaningnew pairs and constructional changes as changes to features of constructions. The approach requires focus on form and meaning equally. Constructionalization is shown to encompass and go beyond both grammaticalization and lexicalization, which are conceptualized as on a continuum. The framework favors thinking in terms of analogizing to sets and schemas as well as of gradual (micro-step) reanalyses. The ability to see how networks, schemas, and micro-constructions are created or grow and decline, as well as the ability to track the development of patterns at both substantive and schematic levels, allows the researcher to see how each micro-construction has its own history within the constraints of larger patterns, most immediately schemas, but also related network nodes.

Keywords: compositionality, constructionalization, productivity, schematicity, snow clones, grammaticalization, lexicalization, networks, word formation
Published online: 5 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.1.1.01tra
References
(2013) Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 438–457). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Gildea, S., Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L
(Eds.) Forthcoming Historical construction grammar Amsterdam John Benjamins
Boas, H.C
(2013) Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–252).New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G
(Eds.) (2008) Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.J., & Traugott, E.C
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.L
(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 221, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Typology. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 337–368). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C
(1996) The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Defour, T., D’Hondt, U., Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Willems, D
Forthcoming). In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Helsinki: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
De Smet, H
(2012) The course of actualization. Language, 881, 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G
(2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, SV1-9. [URL].Google Scholar
Fischer, O
(2007) Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, E.J., & Michaelis, L.A
(Eds.) (2003) Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In E.J. Francis & L.A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 1–27). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fried, M
(2009) Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A
(2012) The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 52–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C., & Molinelli, P
(Eds.) 2010 Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T
(1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in; language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, (pp. 15–31). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haselow, A
(2011) Typological changes in the Lexicon: Analytic tendencies in english noun formation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(2004) On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N.P
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S
(Eds.) (2009) Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation in germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, H.H., & Joseph, B.D
(2009) Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd Edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S
(2005) Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C
(1995) Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd Edition. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
(2004) Theory and method in grammaticalization [Special Issue]. In G. Diewald (Ed.), Zeitschrift für germanistische linguistik, 32, (pp. 152–187).Google Scholar
(2008) Information structure and grammaticalization. In E. Seoane & M.J. López-Couso (Eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 207–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D
(2011) Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 438–449). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L
(2002) English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics & word-formation, 3rd Edition. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Mair, C
(2004) Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 121–150). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A
1958 L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., & Traugott, E.C
(1999) Scope and the development of epistemic modality. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 295–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Núñez-Pertejo, P
(1999)  Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica, 711, 135–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, E
(2007) The snowclones data base. [URL].
Patten, A.L
(2012) The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G
(2003) Phrases for lazy writers in kit form. Language Log, October 27.Google Scholar
(2004) Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log, January 16.Google Scholar
Rissanen, M
(2004) Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside (s) . In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.E
(1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley linguistics society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization, 389–405. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(1995) The role of discourse ‘markers’ in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester University.
(2012) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Forthcoming). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, S. Gildea, E. Smirnova & L. Sommerer (Eds.) DOI logo
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. , & Trousdale, G
Forthcoming). Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
Trips, C
(2009) Lexical semantics and diachronic morphology: The development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of english. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G
(2008a) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b) A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 11, 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008c) Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. 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
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M
(2013) Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 361, 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandewinkel, S., & Davidse, K
(2008) The interlocking paths of development of emphasizer adjective pure . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 91, 255–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F.T
(1969) An historical syntax of the English language, Volume 21. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zhan, F
(2012) The structure and function of the Chinese copular construction. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A
(2006) Snowclone mountain? Language Log. March 13. [URL]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 25 other publications

Castro-Chao, Noelia
2022. The Emergence and Loss of the English Minor Complementizerstillanduntil. Journal of English Linguistics 50:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele
2020. Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Espinal, M. Teresa, Cristina Real-Puigdollers & Xavier Villalba
2024. From a movement verb to an epistemic discourse marker. Linguistic Variation 24:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fong, Ronald
2016. Chinese as satellite-framed. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 3:2 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
2018. Using more native-like language acquisition processes in the foreign language classroom. Cogent Education 5:1 ► pp. 1429134 ff. DOI logo
Halevy, Rivka
2016. The ‘swift of foot’ construction and the phrase structure of the adjectival construct in Hebrew. Studies in Language 40:2 ► pp. 380 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
2023. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Higashiizumi, Yuko
2016. The development of confirmation/agreement markers away from the RP in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:2 ► pp. 282 ff. DOI logo
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Kolbe-Hanna, Daniela & Natalia Filatkina
2021. Chapter 12. The diachronic origin of English I mean and German ich meine. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 327 ff. DOI logo
Lepic, Ryan
2019. A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Lesuisse, Mégane & Maarten Lemmens
2018. Grammaticalisation cut short. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia
2020. From verb to New Event Marker. Studies in Language 44:4 ► pp. 788 ff. DOI logo
Luraghi, Silvia, Chiara Naccarato & Erica Pinelli
2020. The u+gen construction in Modern Standard Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Neels, Jakob & Stefan Hartmann
2018. Reduction or expansion? A bit of both. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Skrzypek, Dominika
2023. Variation and change in the Swedish periphrastic passive: a constructional approach. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Vinogradova, Ekaterina & Xueqing Chen
2023. CONSTRUCTIONS ‘PO + BODY PART NOUN’: THE CROSSROADS OF GRAMMAR, PHRASEOLOGY AND LEXICOLOGY. Lomonosov Journal of Philology :№5, 2023 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Wen, Xu, Kun Yang & Fangtao Kuang
2014. Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Xu, Yang
2015. A Constructionalization Approach to Chinese Shang (上) and Xia (下) Spatial Metaphor. Chinese Studies 04:03 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Kun & Qingshun He
2022. The development of VdeO clefts in Chinese: A diachronic constructionist approach. Lingua 270 ► pp. 103214 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Xu & Jin Liu
2017. Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. Constructionalization and constructional changes . Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Heyou
2014. Where do they come from?. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 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.