Chapter 5
Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition
Integrating subtractive language developments in the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization model
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.
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
References (58)
References
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Cognition in construction grammar. Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 309–337. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2015. Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 650–667. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 479–491. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2017. Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 12]. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2020. Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 213–229. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses. The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 83–102. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Smet, Hendrik. 2020. What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 251–278. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Disney, Steve. 2016. Another visit to be
supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies 97(8): 892–916. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Divjak, Dagmar, Levshina, Natalia & Klavan, Jane. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 447–463. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, Vyvyan. 2012. Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science 3(2): 129–141. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions. A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2019 [2014]. Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. [Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language – Advanced]. Edinburgh: EUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 26]. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnstone, Barbara. 1996. The Linguistic Individual. Self-expression in Language and Linguistics [Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics]. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Johnstone, Barbara. 2000. The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 405–424. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael. 2000. A usage-based conception of language. [LAUD Paper No. 295]. Essen: Universität Duisburg-Essen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 1. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, Ronald W. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21(2): 339–384. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33(2): 157–211. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noël, Dirk. 2008. The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English. A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4): 314–340. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noël, Dirk. 2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199: 72–93. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noël, Dirk. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Petré, Peter & Anthonissen, Lynn. 2020. Individuality in complex systems. A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2): 185–212. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 1–27. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Mantlik, Annette. 2015. Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia 133(4): 583–623. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2022a. Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. [Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics 27]. Leiden: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wagner, Suzanne Evans & Sankoff, Gillian. 2011. Age grading in the Montréal French inflected future. Language Variation and Change 23(3): 275–313. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English. Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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.