Cover not available
Part of
Reconnecting Form and Meaning: In honour of Kristin Davidse
Edited by Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière, William B. McGregor and An Van linden
[Studies in Language Companion Series 230] 2023
► pp. 123–144

Chapter 5
Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition

Integrating subtractive language developments in the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model

| The University of Hong Kong
This chapter reflects on how the gradual disappearance of a construction from a language can be accounted for in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar through an exploration of how the phenomenon can be accommodated in Schmid’s (2020) Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model. This theory of the dynamics of the linguistic system is radical in its usage-based account in that it separates collective conventionalization from individual entrenchment and models how they interact in usage. Schmid focuses on the accumulative dynamics of the system, however, and gives scant attention to subtractive/attritional developments. Considering diachronic corpus data on the decline of the Deontic nci construction, the chapter brings to bear the EC-model’s conceptual apparatus to gauge the role of individual speakers in language-level constructional attrition.
Keywords: diachronic construction grammar, usage-based model, entrenchment-and-conventionalization model, individual differences, constructional attrition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A radically usage-based model of language (change)
  • 3.The role of the individual in constructional attrition
    • 3.1Preamble: constructional attrition as phenomenon and area of investigation
    • 3.2The decline of the Deontic nci construction in the Late Modern English period
    • 3.3Constructional attrition in a radically usage-based based model of language (change)
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.230.05noe
References (58)
References
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Cognition in construction grammar. Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 309–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2013. Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503) [Topics in English Linguistics 51]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Noël, Dirk. 2012. The Dutch evidential NCI. A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2015. Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 650–667. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 12]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 213–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses. The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 251–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Disney, Steve. 2016. Another visit to be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies 97(8): 892–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, Levshina, Natalia & Klavan, Jane. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 447–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2012. Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science 3(2): 129–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Recontextualizing grammar. Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back [Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 14], Elżbieta Tabakowska, Michał Choiński & Łukasz Wiraszka (eds), 71–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions. A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 21], Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds), 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019 [2014]. Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. [Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language – Advanced]. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 26]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The Linguistic Individual. Self-expression in Language and Linguistics [Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2000. The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 405–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. In AAAI-92 Proceedings, San Jose, California, 302–308. Cambridge MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael. 2000. A usage-based conception of language. [LAUD Paper No. 295]. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Breban, Tine (eds). 2021. Lost in Change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions [ Studies in Language Companion Series 218 ]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50], Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed), 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology [Cognitive Linguistics Research 15], Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds), 13–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality [Topics in English Linguistics 81], Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero Lapeyre, Jorge Arús Hita & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 95–115. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33(2): 157–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Mannila, Heikki. 2011. The diffusion of language change in real time. Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2008. The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English. A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4): 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30: 39–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199: 72–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Under review. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition.
Noël, Dirk & Colleman, Timothy. 2021. Diachronic construction grammar. In The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Wen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds), 662–675. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter & Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Individuality in complex systems. A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94(4): 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2009. Lifespan changes in the language of three early modern gentlemen. In The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800), Arja Nurmi, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin (eds), 165–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, Karolina. 2019. The Statistics of Obsolescence. Purpose Subordinators in Late Modern English. Strasbourg/Basel/Freiburg: EUCOR – The European Campus/Universität Basel/University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian. 2005. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. 2, Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds), 1002–1013. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. How the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model might enrich diachronic Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 306–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Mantlik, Annette. 2015. Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia 133(4): 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2020. Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death. Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In Nodes and Networks: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar [ Constructional Approaches to Language 27 ], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 70–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonti, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Frequency and variation in the community grammar. Tracking a new change through the generations. Language Variation and Change 19(2): 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2015. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Smirnova, Sommerer & Gildea (eds), 51–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 27]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022b. Discourse Structuring Markers in English. A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics [Constructional Approaches to Language 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Sankoff, Gillian. 2011. Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23(3): 275–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Noël, Dirk
2024. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.