Cover not available
Part of
The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and beyond
Edited by Sarah Buschfeld, Thomas Hoffmann, Magnus Huber and Alexander Kautzsch
[Varieties of English Around the World G49] 2014
► pp. 160–180

The cognitive evolution of Englishes

The role of constructions in the dynamic model

Schneider’s Dynamic Model (2007) predicts that it is the lexicon-syntax interface that exhibits first traces of the emergence of characteristic structural innovations during the phase of Nativization. In this paper, I will show how a Construction Grammar approach provides a cognitive explanation for this phenomenon. I will then illustrate the advantages of a Construction Grammar analysis by focussing on Comparative Correlative (CC) constructions (e.g. The higher the price is, the more interesting the product is.; cf. Fillmore et al. 1988; Sag 2010). As the statistical analysis of data from various corpora from the International Corpus of English project show, all varieties exhibit similar processing effects, but differ greatly with respect to their reliance on partly substantive, partly schematic meso-constructions.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, constructions, lexis-syntax cline, Nativization
Published online: 12 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g49.10hof
References (73)
Abeillé, A., Borsley, R.D. & Espinal, M.-T. 2006. The syntax of comparative correlatives in French and Spanish. In Proceedings of the HPSG06 Conference , S. Müller (ed.), 6–26.Stanford CA: CSLI. [URL] (02 March 2014).Google Scholar
Abeillé, A. & Borsley, R.D. 2008. Comparative correlatives and parameters. Lingua 118(8): 1139–1157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. & Huber, M. 2000. Constructing new pronominal systems from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Linguistics 38(5): Special Issue : Creoles, Pidgins, and Sundry Languages: Essays in Honor of Pieter Seuren, J. Arends (ed.), 833–866.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic [Constructional Approaches to Language 8]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21(1): 619–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(3): 229–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7(2): 173–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Bastard Tongues: A Trailblazing Linguist Finds Clues to our Common Humanity in the World’s Lowliest Languages. New York NY: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Boas, H.C. & Sag, I. (eds). 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Borsley, R.D. 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar , S. Müller (ed.), 70–92. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. 2008. Comparative and equative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and at the 9th Semfest, Stanford CA.
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5): 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 49–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2011. The the…the… construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1): 99–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language. M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, A.D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P.W. & Jackendoff, R. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4): 543–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 497–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. 2006. Course in General Linguistics, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds). Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2013. Construction Grammar and First Language Acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 347–364.
Ellis, N. 2013. Construction Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 365–378.
Fillmore, C.J. 1987. Varieties of conditional sentences. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 3: 163–182.
. 1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds), 35–55. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M.C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicity in Syntax [Typological Studies in Language 6], J. Haiman (ed.), 187–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalisation in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. 2004. Coll.analysis 3. A Program for R for Windows 2.x. [URL] (02 March 2014).Google Scholar
. 2008. Statistik für Sprachwissenschaftler [Studienbuch zur Linguistik 13]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 56(3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Iconicity. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, R.E. Asher (ed.), 1629–1633. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2011. Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 307–328.
. 2014. Comparing Comparative Correlatives: The German vs. English construction network. In Constructional Approaches to Argument Structure in German, H.C. Boas & A. Ziem (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. In prep. Comparing English Comparative Correlatives: Diachronic and Synchronic Variation at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface.
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. 2013a. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 1–12.
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds). 2013b. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W.B. 2013. Constructions in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 491–509.
Huddleston, R. 2002. Comparative constructions. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, G.K. Pullum & R. Huddleston (eds), 1097–1170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson-Ettle, D.M. & Schmied, J. 1999. Manual to accompany the East African Component of the International Corpus of English. Ms, Chemnitz University of Technology.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 1992. An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. PhD dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. 2011. English comparative correlative construction: Interactions between lexicon and constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 307–336.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 2004. Issues in the Study of Pidgin and Creole Languages [Studies in Language Companion Series 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J.D. 1988. The comparative conditional construction in English, German, and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 176–187.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A. 1994. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18(1): 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax. Vol. 2: Subordination, Independent Elements and Element Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S. & Aarts, B. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English [Varieties of English Around the World G29]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G.K. & Huddleston, R. (eds). 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. 2010. English Filler-Gap Constructions. Language 86(3): 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E.W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2): 233–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2004. WordSmith Tools, Version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S.T. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2009. Between simplification and complexification: Non-
standard varieties of English around the world. In Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, G. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (eds), 64–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik und Erstspracherwerb. In Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie, K. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 19–37. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. 2010. Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1): 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Brunner, Thomas
2022.  Into-causatives in World Englishes. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 43:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne
2022. N-isFocalizers as Semi-fixed Constructions: Modeling Variation across World Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 50:2 ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas, Thomas Brunner & Jakob Horsch
2020. English comparative correlative constructions: A usage-based account. Open Linguistics 6:1 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Horsch, Jakob
2020.  VIDÍŠ TÝM LEPŠIE, ČÍM BLIŽŠIE SA POZERÁŠ SLOVAK COMPARATIVE CORRELATIVE CC' CONSTRUCTIONS FROM A CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 71:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Horsch, Jakob
2021. Slovak comparative correlatives. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas
2018. Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and Psychological Issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Thomas
2020. Marginal Argument Structure constructions: the [VtheNtaboo-wordout of]-construction in Post-colonial Englishes. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 DOI logo
Deshors, Sandra C. & Stefan Th. Gries
2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 192 ff. DOI logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller & Melanie Röthlisberger
2016. Around the world in three alternations. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 37:2 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.