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. 169–202

Reanalysis and gramma(ticaliza)tion of constructions

The case of the deictic relative construction with perception verbs in French

The purpose of this paper is to study language change as instances of usage-based reanalysis. We intend to show that a specific Romance complementation, namely the deictic relative, found mainly with verbs of perception, acquires the status of construction (i.e. a schematic construction according to the terminology of Croft & Cruse (2004, p. 255)). According to our conception of grammar, this implies a change from an individual, lexically determined structure, into a grammatical construction. We will show that this change from lexical (=A) to grammatical (=B), is a usage-based reanalysis, i.e. a new analysis of received usage due to structural ambiguity, without immediate surface manifestation of a change (see the definition in Andersen 2008, p. 33). This in turn implies that the speaker interprets the content of one expression first as A, then B and possibly C. The diachronic study of the deictic relative with the perception verb voir in French is based on corpus data from different stages of the language. We intend to show that the innovation spreads from oral to written text types, as witnessed from theatre to other genres.
Published online: 10 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.07kra
References (62)
References
Andersen, H. (2001a). Introduction. In Andersen, H. (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2001b). Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In Andersen, H. (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress (pp. 21–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
. (2006a). Grammation, regrammation, and degrammation: Tense loss in Russian. Diachronica 23 (2), 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006b). Synchrony, Diachrony, and Evolution. In Nedergaard Thomsen, O. (Ed.), Competing models of Linguistic Change. Evolution and Beyond Vol. 279 (pp. 59–90). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Eythórsson, T. (Ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal Papers Vol. 113 (pp. 11–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H.L. & Schøsler, L. (2002). La complémentation. In Jansen, H., P. Polito, L. Schøsler & E. Strudsholm (Eds.), L'infinito & oltre. Omaggio a Gunver Skytte (pp. 273–295). Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benzakour, F. (1984). Les relatives déictiques. In Kleiber, G. (Ed.), Recherches en pragma-sémantique (pp. 75–106). Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Boye, K. & Harder, P. (2007). Complement-taking predicates: usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31 (3), 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadiot, P. (1976). Relatives et infinitives «déictiques» en français. DRLAV 13.Google Scholar
. (1978). Où t'as ta femme?, Semantikos 2: 2–3, 1–20.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1988). La frase relativa. In Renzi, L. (Ed.), Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione Vol. 1 (pp. 443–503). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2006). The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. In Thomsen, O.N. (Ed.), Competing models of linguistic change. Evolution and beyond (pp. 91–132). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (this volume). Does innovation need reanalysis? In Coussé, E. & F. v. Mengden (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M.D., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Jakobsen, L.F. (1996). Content, expression and structure: studies in Danish functional grammar . Vol. 29 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furukawa, N. (2005). Pour une sémantique des constructions grammaticales . Thème et thématicité . Bruxelles: De Boeck-Duculot.Google Scholar
Graffi, G. (1980). Su alcune costruzioni "pseudorelative". Rivista di grammatica generativa 5, 117–139.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1969). Le bon usage . 9th ed. Gembloux: J. Duculot.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (1996). Functional semantics a theory of meaning, structure and tense in English . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A.G. (1944a). Je le vois sourire; je le vois qui sourit; je le vois souriant. Part one. Modern Language Quarterly 5 (3), 275 - 301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1944b). Je le vois sourire; je le vois qui sourit; je le vois souriant. Part two. Modern Language Quarterly 5 (4), 387–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. & G. Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heltoft, L. (2010). Paradigmatic structure in a usage based theory og grammaticalisation. In Boye, K. & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language Usage and Language Structure (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (this volume). Constructional change, paradigmatic structure and the orientation of usage processes. In Coussé, E. & F. v. Mengden (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hjelmslev, L. (1966 [1943]). Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse . København: B. Lunos bogtrykkeri a/s.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar . London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1988). Sur les relatives du type Je le vois qui arrive . Travaux de Linguistique 17, 89–115.Google Scholar
Kragh, K.J. (2010). Le remplacement de l'imparfait du subjonctif par le présent du subjonctif considéré dans une perspective de grammaticalisation . Vol. 60. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
. (forthcoming). La complémentation des verbes visuels.
Kragh, K.J. & Schøsler, L. (forthcoming). Regrammation and paradigmatization. Reanalyses of the deictic relative construction with progressive function in French. In Patard, A. & W. De Mulder (Eds.).
Kragh, K.J. & Strudsholm, E. (2011). Deiktiske relativsætninger i fransk og italiensk. In Durst-Andersen, P. & H.H. Müller (Eds.), Ny forskning i grammatik Vol. 18 (pp. 197–223). Odense: Institut for Sprog og Kommunikation, Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
. (2013). The relevance of deixis in the description of the predicative relative clause. In Kragh, K.J. & J. Lindschouw (Eds.), Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages (pp. 207–226). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Bør ikke bruges som reference Prédication seconde et structure informationnelle : La relative de perception comme construction présentative. In Cadiot, P. & N. Furukawa (Eds.), La prédication seconde (pp. 49–66). Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39, 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. & Lowrey, B. (2003). La complémentation des verbes de perception en français et en anglais. In Miller, P. & A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds.), Essais sur la grammaire comparée du français et de l’anglais (pp. 131–188). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Muller, C. (1995). Les relatives de perception : J'entends le garçon qui bégaie qui bégaie. In Shyldkrot, H.B.-Z. & L. Kupferman (Eds.), Tendances récentes en linguistique française et générale. Volume dédíé à David Gaatone (pp. 311–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nørgård-Sørensen, J. (this volume). Filling empty distinctions of expression with content: Usage-motivated assignment of grammatical meaning. In Coussé, E. & F. v. Mengden (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting grammaticalization . The role of paradigmatic structure . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Polentz, E. (1903). Französische Relativsätze als predikative Bestimmungen und verwandte Konstruktionen . Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Prebensen, H. (1982). La proposition relative dite attributive. Revue Romane 17 (1), 98–117.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1975). Pseudo-relatives and the unity of subject raising. Archivum Linguisticum . New series 6, 32–64.Google Scholar
. (1977). Italian Syntax . Transformational and relational grammar . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, M. (1979). Les propositions relatives prédicatives et attributives: problème de linguistique française. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 74 (1), 351–395.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, K. (1936). Syntaxe du français contemporain 2. Les propositions subordonnées . Paris.Google Scholar
Scarano, A. (2002). Frasi relative e pseudo-relative in italiano, sintassi, semantica e articolazione dell'informazione . Rome: Bulzoni editore.Google Scholar
Schwarze, C. (1974). Les constructions du type "Je le vois qui arrive". In Rohrer, C. & N. Ruwet (Eds.), Actes du Colloque franco-allemand de grammaire transformationnelle Vol. 1 (pp. 18–30). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schøsler, L. (2001). From Latin to Modern French: Actualization and Markedness. In Andersen, H. (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress (pp. 169–185). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
. (2006). Grammaticalisation et dégrammaticalisation. Etude des constructions progressives en français du type Pierre va / vient / est chantant. In Labeau, E., C. Vetters & P. Caudal (Eds.), Sémantique et diachronie du système verbal français Vol. 16 (pp. 91–119). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (1998). Verbal periphrases in Romance : aspect, actionality, and grammaticalization . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strudsholm, E. (1999). Relative situazionali in italiano moderno. Una reinterpretazione della cosiddetta pseudorelativa sulla base di un approccio combinato, formale e funzionale . Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
. (2007). La “relativa situazionale” fra testo e contesto. Una reinterpretazione della cosiddetta pseudorelativa. In Venier, F. (Ed.), Relative e pseudorelative tra grammatica e testo (pp. 117–132). Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Tobler, A. (1884). Vermischte Beiträge zur Grammatik des Französischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 8, 490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1886). Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik . Leipzig.Google Scholar
Togeby, K. (1974). Précis historique de grammaire française . København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, J. (1985). The predicative relatives of French perception verbs. In Bolkestein, A.-M. (Ed.), Predicates and terms in functional grammar (pp. 219–234). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Völker, H. (2009). La linguistique variationnelle et la perspective intralinguistique. Revue de Linguistique Romane 73, 27–76.Google Scholar
Wartburg, W. v. (1928-). Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch (FEW ). Bonn: Fritz Klopp Verlag.Google Scholar
Willems, D. (1983). « Regarde voir ». Les verbes de perception visuelle et la complémentation verbale. In Roegiest, E.L.T. (Ed.), Verbe et phrase dans les langues romanes. Mélanges offerts à Louis Mourin (pp. 147–158). Gent: Romanica Gandensia.Google Scholar
Wilmet, M. (1997). Grammaire critique du français . Louvain-la-Neuve: Hachette Duculot.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten
2022. Voilà , membre du paradigme des marqueurs discursifs. Langages N° 227:3 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Velinova, Malinka
2022. À propos de la grammaticalisation/constructionnalisation de la relative attributive en français. Revue Romane. Langue et littérature. International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures 57:1 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Jeppesen Kragh, Kirsten & Lene Schøsler
2021. Analyse constructionnelle et paradigmatique illustrée par le verbe voir. Langue française N° 209:1 ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.