This paper examines two cases of so-called syntactic amalgams. In syntactic amalgams a particular string that is shared by two constructions is exploited to combine them, in such a way that one of the constructions functions as a modifier of the other. Typical examples are after God knows how many years (< after many years + God knows how many years) and a big enough house (< a big house + big enough). In formal theories, these kinds of constructions have been insightfully described as ‘grafts’. However, the exact process through which these amalgams arise remains unexplored. When studied closely, these processes reveal form–function friction not fully accounted for by the graft metaphor.
Syntactic amalgams typically serve a subjective function and have been recruited for this purpose. However, because they consist of a syntagm that is still internally parsable, they tend to resist full reanalysis. More precisely, their original syntax continues to constrain their use. As such, amalgams get caught between their original syntax, which remains transparent, and their new function, which suggests a new syntactic status.
This appears clearly from contrastive studies of amalgams in Dutch and English that are functionally similar but whose use is constrained in different ways due to structural differences between the two languages. Our first case study deals with the Dutch and English amalgam wie weet / who knows. A contrastive analysis of the development of the respective items shows both the conservative effect of the origin of change and the attraction exerted by the target of change. The second case we discuss in detail involves so-called transparent free relatives. A contrastive analysis shows the role of the overall grammar of a language in licensing change, in this case with Dutch word order posing more difficulties to the new focusing function of transparent free relatives.
In general, both case studies show the formation of syntactic amalgams to be sensitive to system pressures both in the course of their development and in the eventual outcome of change.
Smet, Hendrik De, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 197 ff.
Pijpops, Dirk & Dirk Speelman
2017. Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica 51:1
Grosu, Alex
2016. The semantics, syntax, and morphology of Transparent Free Relatives revisited; a comparison of two approaches. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34:4 ► pp. 1245 ff.
Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde
2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?. Folia Linguistica 50:2
Fonteyn, Lauren, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe
2015. How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 583 ff.
De Smet, Hendrik
2013. Change through recombination: blending and analogy. Language Sciences 40 ► pp. 80 ff.
2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28:1 ► pp. 83 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.