Article published in:
Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 23–48

Does innovation need reanalysis?

| University of Leuven
Syntactic reanalysis has been claimed to be the only mechanism capable of explaining syntactic change. However, the concept of syntactic reanalysis is flawed. It insufficiently accommodates gradience in synchronic grammar and in language change, and depends too heavily on ambiguity as a cause of change. Alternative mechanisms exist to account for innovation that do not suffer from these problems. At the same time, the problem of explaining syntactic innovations is partly tied to models of language that overstate the role of syntax. Part of the problem therefore disappears under different theoretical starting assumptions.
Published online: 10 July 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.02sme
References

References

Andersen, H.
(1973) Abductive and deductive change. Language 49, 765–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In H. Andersen (Ed.). Actualization: Linguistic change in progress (pp. 225–248). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anttila, R.
(1989)  Historical and comparative linguistics . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnavielle, T.
(1997)  Le morphème -ant: unité et diversité: Étude historique et théorique . Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S.
(Eds) (2000)  Usage-based models of language . Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Berg, T.
(1998)  Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brems, L.
(2003) Measure Noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8, 283–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buridant, C.
(2000)  Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français . Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2004) Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph (Ed.). The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010)  Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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 22, 381–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L.
(2001) What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23, 113–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E.
(2010) Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 38–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000)  Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach . London: Longmann.Google Scholar
(2001)  Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In M. Fried & J. Östman (Eds.). Construction grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A.
(2004)  Cognitive Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B.
(2006)  The imperative in English: A corpus-based, pragmatic analysis . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Denison, D.
(2010) Category change in English with and without structural change. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Graeme Trousdale (Eds.). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119, 1728–1755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012a) The course of actualization. Language 88, 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b)  Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Change through recombination: Blending and analogy. Language Sciences 40, 80–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. & Van de Velde, F.
(2013) Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37, 534–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M.
(2001) The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S.C.
(2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 429–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O.
(1988) The rise of the for NP to V construction: An explanation. In G. Nixon & J. Honey (eds). An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang (pp. 67–88). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2000) Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversible? The case of to before the infinitive in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (eds). Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007)  Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, M.F.
(1980) Levels of processing in sentence production. In B. Butterworth (Ed.). Language production. Vol. 1. Speech and talk (pp. 177–220). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
GLLF = Grand Larousse de la langue française
1986 Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(2006)  Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A.C.
(2003) Cross-linguistic perspectives on syntactic change. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (eds). The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 529–551). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C. & Campbell, L.
(1995)  Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1998) Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 315–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18, 180–205.Google Scholar
Hay, J.B. & Baayen, R.H.
(2005) Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 342–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.
(1991)  Grammaticalization . A conceptual framework . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds). Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2. Focus on types of grammatical markers (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E.C.
(2003)  Grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.D.
(1992) Diachronic explanation: Putting speakers back into the picture. In G.W. Davis & G.K. Iverson (eds). Explanation in historical linguistics (pp. 123–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, B.
(2004) Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (Ed.). Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization (pp. 45–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R.
(1990)  Sprachwandel von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache . Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & König, E.
(1992) Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 30, 671–697. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A.
(1989) Function and grammar in the history of English: Periphrastic do . In R.W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.). Language change and variation (pp. 134–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Krug, M.
(2000)  Emerging English modals. A corpus-based study of grammaticalization . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W.
(1977) Syntactic Reanalysis. In C.N. Li (Ed.). Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 57–139). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1987)  Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds). Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.W.
(1979)  Principles of diachronic syntax . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, A.
(1912) L' évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12, 130–148.Google Scholar
Menard, P.
(1978)  Manuel du français du moyen âge. Vol. 1. Syntaxe de l'ancien français . Bordeaux: SOBODI.Google Scholar
Menge, H.
(2000)  Lehrbuch der lateinische Syntax und Semantik . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J.
(1998)  Language form and language function . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Noël, D.
(2003) Is there semantics in all syntax? The case of accusative and infinitive constructions vs. that-clauses. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (eds). Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 329–345). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Petré, P.
(2012) General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 27–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F.
(2004) Inevitable reanalysis: From local adpositions to approximative adnumerals, in German and wherever. Studies in Language 28, 165–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I.
(2007)  Diachronic syntax . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
(1977) Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C.N. Li (Ed.). Mechanisms of syntactic change (pp. 141–177). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R.
Forthcoming). Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects. In A. Adli, M. García García & G. Kaufman (Eds.) System, usage and society Berlin Mouton de Gruyter
Traugott, E.C.
(2008) The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.). Constructions and language change (pp. 23–45). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. & König, E.
(1991) The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.). Approaches to grammaticalization . Vol. 1. (pp. 189–218) Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. & Trousdale, G.
(2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, E.
(2004)  Grammaticalization as economy . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verveckken, K.
(2012) Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 421–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F.T.
(1963–1973)  An historical syntax of the English language . Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, A.
(1982)  Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax: A study of the Wiclifite sermons . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia & Mario Serrano-Losada
2017. The rise and development of parenthetical needless to say . Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2 ► pp. 134 ff. Crossref logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
2014.  In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69], ► pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Larrivée, Pierre & Amel Kallel
2020. The empirical reality of bridging contexts. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3 ► pp. 427 ff. Crossref logo
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens
2014.  In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69], ► pp. 243 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 october 2021. 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.