Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Context and Text
Vol. 5:1 (2023) ► pp.80–107

The diachronic analysis of resultative constructions

A systemic functional framework

| East China Normal University, China
This study aims to illustrate a systemic functional framework for analysing the change of constructions which are inherently form-meaning correspondences. The study first discusses the value of systemic functional linguistics (hereafter SFL) to solving the perceived problems arising from the theoretical model of grammaticalisation. The dominance of grammaticalisation theory in historical linguistics has led some to equate grammaticalisation with language change. However, a systematic exploration of the semantic change is frequently lost in the literature on grammaticalisation. SFL, since its beginning in the early 1980s, has become a leading linguistics school in dealing with semantic and lexicogrammatical changes and the mapping between meaning and form. This study proposes a framework in which SFL theories allow us to address the critical issues in construction change, hence providing mechanisms for the diachronic analysis of both semantic and lexicogrammatical changes. On the basis of the framework, this study focuses its analysis on the change of resultative constructions (hereafter RCs) in Old Chinese and Old English. The diachronic analysis shows that new constructions emerge through a cycle of language change in which the interaction of semantics and lexicogrammar plays a central role. In addition, semantic condensing and compacting are critical steps in the creation of new constructions.
Keywords: systemic functional linguistics, Old Chinese, Old English, construction change, resultative constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Background and purpose of the research
  • 2.A systemic functional framework: Semantic and lexicogrammatical mechanisms
    • 2.1The applicability of SFL
    • 2.2Semantic mechanisms
    • 2.3Lexicogrammatical mechanisms
  • 3.The diachronic analysis of RCs
    • 3.1The change of RCs in Chinese
    • 3.2The change of RCs in English
  • 4.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 26 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00043.yan
References (47)
References
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald. 2008. (eds.). Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. Constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Broccias, Critiano. 2008. Towards a history of English resultative constructions: The case of adjectival resultative constructions. English Language and Linguistics 12(1). 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Richard D. Janda. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23(2–3). 93–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeVriend, Hubert J. 1984. (ed.). The Old English Herbarium and Medicina de Quadrupedibus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Shengli. 1998. Prosodic structure and compound words in Classical Chinese. In Jerome Packard (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation, 197–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2000. Oriented adverbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. PhD dissertation. Universitat Tubingen, Germany.
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele 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
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and Theme in English (Part 1). Journal of Linguistics 31. 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1988. On the language of physical science. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Registers of written English, 162–177. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
1993. Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, 69–85. London: FalmerGoogle Scholar
1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
2008. Complementarities in language. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. with Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2014. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th edition). London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 161. 335–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: A cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation. The University of Manchester, England.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In C. N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munchen: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization (3rd edition). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 121–150. (Studies in corpus linguistics, 13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988. Typology of resultative constructions. (Translated from the original Russian edition). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14 (2). 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, volume 3: 1476 – 1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique generale. Lausanne: PayotGoogle Scholar
Shi, Yuzhi. 2015. The evolution of Chinese grammar. Nanchang: Jiangxi Education Publishing House.Google Scholar
Sybesma, Rint. 1999. The Mandarin VP. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tham, Shiao Wei. 2015. Resultative verb compounds in Mandarin. In William S-Y. Wang & Sun Chaofen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese linguistics, 306–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–177. Austin, Texas: University of Texas. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericicus T. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language, volume 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wang, Li. 1980. Hanyu shigao. (An outline of Chinese language history). Beijing: China Book Company.Google Scholar
Yang, Yanning. 2019. The change of constructions in Old Chinese and Old English: A study from the perspective of non-compositionality. Foreign Language and Literature Studies 51. 451–464.Google Scholar
Zoe Wu, Xiu-Zhi. 2004. Grammaticalization and language change in Chinese: A formal view. (Routledge Curzon Asian Linguistics Series). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Zou, Ke. 1994. Resultative V-V compounds in Chinese. In Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds.), The morphology-syntax connection: MIT working papers in linguistics 22 1, 271–290. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar