This article presents a model analysis of the interplay between structure and usage in the semantic change of constructions, with a focus on the role of content structure in the sense of paradigmatically organised semantic structure. The case at hand is the development of the Danish indirect object construction from the 18th century to the present, a specialisation process parallel to the one described for English by Colleman & De Clerck (2011), though not identical to it. The semantics of constructions is described in terms of linguistic content, as distinct from conceptual structure, and the linguistic content of constructions is organised to a great extent in paradigmatic oppositions, similar to those found in classical morphology (Nørgård-Sørensen, Heltoft & Schøsler 2011). This organisation principle implies that the semantic description must uncover the boundaries of the construction’s content, a strategy different from a description in terms of prototypicality, but compatible with it.The identification of changes in the paradigmatic organisation of constructions is a precondition for identifying and interpreting the changes we observe in usage. In a concluding example, the reanalyses of the verbs bebrejde ‘reproach’ and gifte sig ‘marry’ are compared, and two kinds of usage processes (actualisation processes) are identified: (1) actualisation processes that are a consequence of structural change in the sense of reanalysis, and (2) processes of redistribution which, in the present case, move verb stems from one already existing construction type to another. Thus, structural descriptions allow us to orient and interpret usage processes.
ODS = Ordbog over det danske Sprog 1-28. [Dictionary of the Danish Language. 1918–1955.
References
Andersen, H. (1973). Abductive and deductive change. Language 49, 4, 765–93.
Andersen, H. (1980). Morphological change: towards a typology. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical Morphology (pp. 1–50). The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers.
Andersen, H. (2001a). Markedness and the theory of linguistic change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic change in progress (pp. 21–57). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andersen, H. (2001b). Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change. In H. Andersen (Ed.), Actualization. Linguistic change in progress (pp. 225–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andersen, H. (2006a). Synchrony, Diachrony, and Evolution. In O. Nedergaard Thomsen (Ed.), Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Evolution and beyond (pp. 59–90). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J., Perkins. R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bybee, J.L. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colleman, T. (2011). Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59, 387–410.
Colleman, T. & de Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 183–210.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faarlund, J.T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K.I. (1997). Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1975). Transformative, intransitive und kursive Verben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.) (pp. 11–86).
Goldberg, A. (1995). A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 203–220).
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, R., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R. & Alho, I. (2004). Iso Suomen Kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Hansen, E. & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det Danske Sprog 1-3. [Grammar of the Danish Language]. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Odense: University of Southern Denmark Press.
Harder, P. (1996a). Functional semantics: a theory of meaning, structure and tense in English. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Harder, P. (1996b). Linguistic structure in a functional grammar. In E. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L. Falster Jakobsen (Eds.), Content, Expression, and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp. 423–452). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.
Heltoft, L. (1996). Paradigms, Word Order and Grammaticalization. In E. Engberg-Pedersen, M. Fortescue, P. Harder, L. Heltoft & L. Falster Jakobsen (Eds.), Content, Expression, and Structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar (pp. 469–494). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Heltoft, L. (2010). Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heltoft, L., Nørgård-Sørensen, J. & Schøsler, L. (2005). Grammatikalisering og struktur. In L. Heltoft, J. Nørgård-Sørensen & L. Schøsler (Eds.), Grammatikalisering og struktur (pp. 9–30). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.
Hjelmslev, L. (1935–37). La catégorie des cas 1-2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Hjelmslev, L. (1943). Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlæggelse. Københavns Universitets Festskrift november 1943. Copenhagen.
Hjelmslev, L. (19592 [1939]). Notes sur les oppositions supprimables. In Essais linguistiques. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, vol. XII, 84–88.
Hopper, P.J. (1998). Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 155–176).
Høysgaard, J.P. (1752). Methodisk Forsøg til en fuldstændig dansk Syntax [Methodical Essay at a Complete Danish Grammar] Copenhagen. (=H. Bertelsen (Ed.), Danske Grammatikere V. Det danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab [1919–1920]).
Kittilä, S. (2005). Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9, 269–97.
Mikkelsen, K. (1911). Dansk Ordföjningslære. Copenhagen: Lehmann og Stages Forlag.
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Romppanen, B. et al. (1997). Suuri Suomi-Ruotsi-Sanakirja 1-2. Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.
SAG = Teleman, U. et al.
Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Taylor, J.R. 1998. Syntactic Constructions as Prototype Categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.) (pp. 177–202).
Teleman, U.Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens Grammatik 1-4. Stockholm: Nordstedts.
Timberlake, A. (1977). Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change (pp. 141–180). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Tomasello, M. (Ed.). (1998). The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Mahwah N.J. and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff.
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.