Cover not available
Part of
Functionalist and Usage-based Approaches to the Study of Language: In honor of Joan L. Bybee
Edited by K. Aaron Smith and Dawn Nordquist
[Studies in Language Companion Series 192] 2018
► pp. 225–245

look up about

Usage-based processes in lexicalization

 | University of New Mexico
This chapter investigates the emergence of a new English phrasal-prepositional verb, look up about, which is found predominantly in online discourse and is largely synonymous with “to google”. It is argued that the verb emerged as the result of a reanalysis of a source syntagm that eroded an internal constituency boundary and resulted in a new lexical item. In order to understand how reanalysis took place in the lexicalization of look up about, usage-based processes such as chunking and holistic and heuristic-based processing are examined, and Bybee’s (2002) Linear Fusion Hypothesis is also invoked to explain how this multi-word expression has entered the lexicon of many users.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1‘Phrasal-Prepositional Verb’ interpretations
    • 2.2Lexicalization
    • 2.3Usage-based processes
      • 2.3.1Chunking
      • 2.3.2Holistic and shallow processing
  • 3.Data collection and method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1‘Look up about’ as a lexical item
    • 4.2Development of Multi-Word ‘look up about’
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.192.10nor
References (42)
References
Baayen, Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. In Probabilistic Linguistics, Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay & Stephanie Jannedy (eds), 229–287. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clayton & Bybee, Joan L. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59 (Supplement 1): 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Conrad, Susan, Leech, Geoffrey & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. II [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20.2], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1596–1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002a. Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4: 215–221.Google Scholar
2002b. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In The Evolution of Language out of Pre-language [Typological Studies in Language 53], T. Givón & Bertram Malle (eds), 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degree of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christianson, Kiel, Hollingworth, Andrew, Halliwell, John F. & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2001. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger. Cognitive Psychology 42: 368–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva. 2004. Language, mind, and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35: 735–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. <[URL]>
Dellaira, Ava. 2014. Love Letters to the Dead. New York NY: Farrar Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 66(3): 189–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diemer, S. 2008. Corpus linguistics with Google? Paper presented at International Society for the Linguistics of English, Boston.
Ellis, Nick. C. & Frey, Eric. 2009. The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (2): Affective priming. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), 473–497. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47: 164–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, William H. 2007. Concordancing the web: Promise and problems, tools and techniques. In Corpus Linguistics and the Web, Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds), 25–46. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Hendrick, Randall & Johnson, Marcus. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1411–23.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 1993. Language Builder: An Essay on the Human Signature in Linguistic Morphogenesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78(3): 527–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus- based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The clause: Complements. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 213–322. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. Gotta – the tenth central modal in English? Social, stylistic and regional variation in the British National Corpus as evidence of ongoing grammaticalization. In The Major Varieties of English, Hans Lindquist, Staffan Klintborg, Magnus Levin & Maria Estling (eds), 177–191. Växjö: Edman & Westerlunds Tryckeri AB.Google Scholar
Kuzmack, Stefanie. 2010. How medium shapes language development: The emergence of quotative re online. In Studies in the History of the English Language, V: Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon: Contemporary Approaches, Robert A. Cloutier, Anne-Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William A. Kretzschmar Jr. (eds) 293–310. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness. In Corpus Linguistics and the Web, Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer (eds), 133–150. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1989. Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42:11–19. (Cited in Blank 2001).Google Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, Juan C. 1998. On the nature of grammaticalization and lexicalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 211–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morford, Jill P. 2003. Grammatical development in adolescent first-language learners. Linguistics 41(4): 681–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse-functional Account. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rainie, Lee & Tancer, Bill. 2007. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Data Memo, April. <[URL]>
Roland, Douglas, Dick, Frederic & Elman, Jeffrey L. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 348–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. 2002. Context, attention and depth of processing during interpretation. Mind & Language 17(1–2): 188–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. & Sturt, Patrick. 2002. Depth of processing in language comprehension: Not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(9): 382–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns. In Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 176], Karen van Hoek, Andrej A. Kibrik & Leo Noordman (eds), 111–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Townsend, David J. & Bever, Thomas G. 2001. Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Rules and Habits. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization  – “methinks” there is some confusion. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 355–370. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Anyanwu, Edith Ada, Chukwuokoro Ifeyinwa & Odey Simon Robert
2024. Emerging New Media Syntax, Violation of English Syntactic Rules, and Meaning Misrepresentations. African Journal of Humanities and Contemporary Education Research 16:1 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.