Article In:
Functions of Language: Online-First ArticlesFrom constructional innovation to linguistic change
On the basis of Present-day English corpus data, this paper investigates deliberate, adaptive linguistic
innovations from a constructional perspective. The concrete phenomena addressed include the XYZ construction
(“Copenhagen is the Paris of Denmark”), the X
be
not the Y-est Z in the Q
construction (“He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed”), extrasentential not (“This is nice. Not.”), X
much (“racist much?”), and the because X construction (“because science”). The paper first
identifies speaker extravagance and sociocognitive salience as major factors in these innovations (Haspelmath 1999; Keller 1994; Schmid & Günther 2016). A
second question is how these deliberate and noticeable (salient, extravagant) innovations spread and may become routinized and
conventionalized, or may even turn into abstract productive patterns. From a constructional perspective, structures may be copied
verbatim, leading to an increase in token frequency. A simple increase in token frequency may already result in
conventionalization and loss of salience (bleaching). But constructions may not only be copied verbatim. Language users may detect
some abstract patterning, which, in turn, can then be used productively. The result would not necessarily be an increase in token,
but in type frequency, resulting in snowcloning and general productivity. Arguably, this may lead to a slower loss of salience,
e.g., while the abstract pattern and some individual instances become generally less salient, some new, innovative tokens may
still be considered extravagant and may keep the pattern productive and noticeable. At the same time, constructions may undergo
shifts in their particular constraints (e.g., for slot fillers).
Keywords: snowcloning, creativity, extravagance, salience, syntactic innovations, conventionalization
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Linguistic innovations
- 3.Usage-based cognitive Construction Grammar
- 4.Constructional innovations
- 4.1New fillers, new variable slots: Snowcloning
- 4.2New Constructions, new meso-constructions
- 5.From constructional innovation to linguistic change
- Author queries
-
References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (42)
Andersen, Henning. 1989. Understanding
linguistic innovations. In Leiv E. Breivik & Ernst. H. Jahr (eds.), Language
change: Contributions to the study of its
causes, 5–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social
networks and historical sociolinguistics. Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters
(1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2010. Expressions
of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and
Linguistics 14(2). 217–238.
. 2018. Because
science! Notes on a variable conjunction. In Elena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination
in English: Synchronic and diachronic
perspectives, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Kompa. 2020. Creativity
within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive
Semiotics 13.11.
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language
change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking
Twittersphere. In Lauren Squires (ed.), English
in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and
change, 149–178. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
Brinton, Laurel & Minoji Akimoto (eds.). 1999. Collocational
and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of
English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Börgerding, Pia, Marie-Christine Benen & Alexander Bergs. 2020. Expecting
the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in
narratives. Anglistik 31(1). 129–153.
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The
grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language
use. Cambridge: CUP.
Elsness, Johan. 1994. On
the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME
Journal 181. 5–27.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The
way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goldberg, Adele & David Casenhiser. 2005. Fast
mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental
Science 8(6). 500–508.
Hartmann, Stefan & Tobias Ungerer. 2023. Constructionist
approaches: Past, present,
future. Cambridge: CUP.
. 2024. Attack
of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of
Linguistics 60(3). 599–634.
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. Language
and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics
Vanguard 5(1). 1–8.
. 2022b. Constructionist
approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics
Association 10(1). 259–284.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics
and Poetics. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style
in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kanetani, Masaru. 2015. On
the new usage of because
. Studies in Language and Literature
[Language] 681. 63–80.
Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker. 2022. (Non-)ellipses
in Dutch, English, and German. The case of because X. Nederlandse
Taalkunde 273(3). 333–367.
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis
and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?
In Robert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech,
place, and action: Studies in deixis and related
topics, 101–124. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two
ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (ed.), Evidence,
experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of
language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The
dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and
entrenchment. Oxford: OUP.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther. 2016. Toward
a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in
Psychology/Psychology of Language 71. 1110.
Sullivan, Kevin. 2010. Buffy
(and SNL) ‘much’ much?: Slang research with Hulu.com, Part 2. Language and
humor, June 8,
2010. Online: [URL]
Theocharous, S. P., Evangelos Theocharous & John H. Lehman. 2012. The
evaluation of the performance of two pyroelectric detectors with vertically aligned multi-walled carbon nanotube
coatings. Infrared Physics &
Technology 55(4). 299–305.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic
meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic
change. Language 65(1). 31–55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: OUP.
Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization
and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language
Sciences 361. 32–46.
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann. 2020. Delineating
extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian
Journal of
Linguistics 341. 345–356.