Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.02sme
References (68)
References
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language 49, 765–793. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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 22, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. (2001). What's wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23, 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E. (2010). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 38–49. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119, 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012a). The course of actualization. Language 88, 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012b). Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Change through recombination: Blending and analogy. Language Sciences 40, 80–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. & Van de Velde, F. (2013). Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37, 534–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 1–45. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, A.C. & Campbell, L. (1995). Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22, 315–351. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. (2004). Grammaticalization as economy . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verveckken, K. (2012). Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 421–478. DOI logoGoogle 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 (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.
2024. A formal approach to reanalysis and the Early Semantic Stability Hypothesis: exploring the test case of the negative counterfactual marker ʾilmale in Hebrew and Aramaic. Linguistics DOI logo
Dietrich, Nadine
2024. The seamlessness of grammatical innovation: the case of be going to (revisited). Folia Linguistica 58:s45-s1 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Vangaever, Jasper
2023. Des catégories sous pression : le gérondif et le participe présent du latin tardif à l’ancien français. Scolia :37 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Larrivée, Pierre & Amel Kallel
2020. The empirical reality of bridging contexts. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia & Mario Serrano-Losada
2017. The rise and development of parentheticalneedless to say. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2 ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Verveckken, Katrien & Nicole Delbecque
2015. On the development of binominal quantifiers in Spanish: the notion of lexical persistence revisited. CogniTextes 13:Volume 13 DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
2014. Reanalysis and gramma(ticaliza)tion of constructions. In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69], ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens
2014. Filling empty distinctions of expression with content. In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 69], ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 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.