Constructionalization and Constructional Changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780199679898, 0199679894

Citation preview

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

O X F O R D S T U D I E S I N D I A C H R O N I C A ND H I S T O R I C A L L I N G U I S T I CS general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge published 1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Chris Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale [For a complete list of books published and in preparation for the series see p. 279]

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes EL IZAB ETH CLO SS TRAUG O TT A N D GRAEME TROUSDALE

1

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries # Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 2013 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2013 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013940284 ISBN 978–0–19–967989–8 Printed in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy

Contents Series preface Acknowledgements Figures and tables Abbreviations Inventory of notation Data bases and electronic corpora 1 The Framework 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Constructional approaches to language 1.2.1 Berkeley Construction Grammar 1.2.2 Sign-Based Construction Grammar 1.2.3 Cognitive Construction Grammar 1.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar 1.2.5 Cognitive Grammar 1.2.6 Our representation of constructions 1.3 Networks and construction grammar 1.4 Constructions and factors relevant to them 1.4.1 Constructions characterized 1.4.2 Schematicity, productivity, and compositionality 1.4.2.1 Schematicity 1.4.2.2 Productivity 1.4.2.3 Compositionality 1.5 A constructional view of change 1.5.1 A characterization and example of constructionalization 1.5.2 Constructional changes 1.5.3 The relation of constructional changes to constructionalization 1.5.4 Instantaneous constructionalization 1.6 Diachronic work particularly relevant to this book 1.6.1 ‘Construction’ as used in earlier historical linguistics 1.6.2 Grammaticalization 1.6.3 Lexicalization 1.6.4 Mechanisms of change 1.6.4.1 Neoanalysis (‘reanalysis’) 1.6.4.2 Analogization (‘analogy’) 1.6.5 Work on diachronic construction grammar

ix x xii xiii xv xvi 1 1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 8 11 11 13 13 17 19 20 22 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 35 35 37 39

vi

Contents 1.7 Evidence 1.8 Summary and outline of the book

2 A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Usage-based models 2.2.1 Storage as a unit 2.2.2 Sanction 2.3 Networks in a usage-based model 2.3.1 The relationship between networks, language processing, and language learning 2.3.2 Spreading activation 2.3.3 Implications for ‘analogy’ 2.4 Types of links 2.4.1 Relational links 2.4.2 Inheritance links 2.5 Growth, obsolescence, and reconfiguration in a network 2.5.1 The life-cycle of constructions 2.5.1.1 Growth at the margins 2.5.1.2 Staying at the margins 2.5.1.3 Marginalization and loss of a construction 2.5.2 Reconfiguration of links 2.6 Categories, gradience, and gradualness 2.7 A case study: the development of the way-construction revisited 2.7.1 The way-construction in PDE 2.7.2 Precursors of the way-construction 2.7.3 Constructionalization of the way-construction 2.7.4 Further expansion of the way-construction 2.7.5 Growth of the way-construction in a network 2.7.6 The status of the way-construction on the lexical-grammatical gradient 2.8 Summary and some questions 3 Grammatical Constructionalization 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Approaches to grammaticalization 3.2.1 Grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency 3.2.2 Grammaticalization as expansion 3.2.3 The interconnectedness of the GR and GE approaches 3.3 A constructional approach to directionality 3.3.1 Increase in productivity

40 43 45 45 46 48 49 50 51 54 56 59 59 61 62 62 63 64 65 71 73 76 76 79 83 86 89 90 91 94 94 96 100 105 108 112 113

Contents

vii

3.3.2 Increase in schematicity 3.3.3 Decrease in compositionality 3.3.4 The interweaving of GR and GE factors in constructionalization and constructional change 3.3.5 Possible motivations for directionality of change 3.4 Rethinking degrammaticalization in terms of constructionalization 3.4.1 Deinflectionalization 3.4.2 Debonding 3.4.3 A caution against projecting original uses from the present 3.5 A case study: the development of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts 3.5.1 Precursors of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts 3.5.2 Early pseudo-clefts 3.5.3 The later history of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts 3.5.4 Discussion 3.6 Summary

116 120

4 Lexical Constructionalization 4.1 Introduction 4.2 On some characteristics of lexical constructions 4.3 Some approaches to lexicalization 4.3.1 Alleged discrete outputs of lexicalization and grammaticalization 4.3.2 Lexicalization as entry into the inventory 4.3.3 Toward rethinking views of lexicalization in the light of lexical constructionalization 4.4 Changing productivity, schematicity, and compositionality in lexical constructionalization 4.4.1 Productivity 4.4.2 Schematicity 4.4.3 Compositionality 4.5 The development of lexical (sub)schemas 4.5.1 OE dom 4.5.2 OE ræden 4.5.3 Choices among nominal affixoids in OE and ME 4.6 The development of atomic lexical constructions 4.7 Lexical constructionalization of clauses and phrases 4.8 On the instantaneous development of some lexical constructions 4.9 Lexical constructionalization and degrammaticalization 4.10 Summary

123 124 127 128 131 132 136 139 141 142 145 147 149 149 150 156 156 160 161 163 164 165 166 168 170 173 175 177 182 186 190 192

viii

Contents

5 Contexts for Constructionalization 5.1 Introduction 5.2 A framework for thinking about contexts 5.2.1 Key contextual factors in pre-constructionalization 5.2.2 Post-constructionalization contextual changes 5.3 Types of contexts for constructionalization 5.3.1 Contexts for the development of word-formation schemas: -dom, -ræden, and -lac 5.3.2 Partitive contexts for the development of binominal quantifiers: a lot of 5.3.3 Contexts for the development of an adjective of difference into a quantifier: several 5.3.4 Contexts for the development of future BE going to 5.3.5 Slots as contexts for the development of snowclones: not the ADJest N1 in the N2 5.3.6 Contexts for the rise of pseudo-clefts 5.4 Persistence of enabling contexts 5.5 Summary 6 Review and Future Prospects 6.1 Introduction 6.2 The major objectives 6.2.1 A summative example: ish 6.3 Some areas for further research References Index of key historical examples Index of names Index of subjects

195 195 198 198 203 207 207 209 214 217 224 225 227 230 231 231 231 233 237 240 267 268 274

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge September 2011

Acknowledgements Coming to grips with the challenge of rethinking many aspects of language change, most especially grammaticalization and lexicalization in a constructional framework, has required time and many exploratory discussions. We have enjoyed debating and arguing points with a large number of students and colleagues, and especially between ourselves. The number of people who have inspired us is huge and we are not able to thank everyone personally. Elizabeth Traugott particularly thanks Alexander Bergs and Gabriele Diewald for inviting her to participate in the workshop on ‘Constructions and Language Change’ held in conjunction with the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics in Madison, WI, 2005, an event that was the impetus for the work discussed here. Other conferences where significant opportunities to develop and discuss ideas occurred include the 6th International Conference on Construction Grammar in Prague, 2010, organized by Mirjam Fried, the Workshop on Diachronic Construction Grammar, 44th Societas Linguistica Europea, Logroño in 2011, organized by Jóhanna Barðdal and Spike Gildea, and the International Conference on Grammaticalization Theory and Data in Rouen, organized by Sophie Hancil, 2012. Thanks are due to colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, Southwest University, Chongqing, and the Universities of Erlangen, Freiburg, Santiago de Compostela, and Stockholm, where some of the ideas in the book were discussed. Above all, thanks to the students and colleagues in Traugott’s seminar in 2011 at Stanford University on constructionalization, most especially Richard Futrell, Mei-chun Liu, Joanna Nykiel, Yoshiko Matsumoto, and Fangqiong Zhan. Graeme Trousdale thanks audiences at a number of conferences and workshops, including but not limited to those at New Reflections on Grammaticalization 4 in Leuven in 2008, convened by Bert Cornillie, Hubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse, Torsten Leuschner, and Tanja Mortelmans; Current Trends in Grammaticalization Research in Groningen in 2009, organized by Muriel Norde and Alexandra Lenz; and the workshop on theory and data in cognitive linguistics at the 43rd Societas Linguistica Europea, in Vilnius in 2010, organized by Nikolas Gisborne and Willem Hollmann. He is also grateful for discussions with colleagues and students in Edinburgh, particularly in the English Language Research Group, and in his English Grammar class. Both authors would like to thank the following friends and colleagues, who have commented on drafts of the material presented here: Tine Breban, Timothy Colleman, Hendrik De Smet, Nikolas Gisborne, Martin Hilpert, Willem Hollmann, Richard Hudson, Muriel Norde, Amanda Patten, Peter Petré and Freek Van de

Acknowledgements

xi

Velde. We are also grateful to anonymous reviewers, both those commissioned by Oxford University Press for their helpful feedback on a draft version of parts of the manuscript, and those involved in reviewing the journal papers and book chapters we wrote leading up to this book. Finally, we would like to thank John Davey and colleagues at Oxford University Press for their help and advice while guiding the book through the various stages of publication.

Figures and tables Figures 1.1 Model of the symbolic structure of a construction in Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001: 18) 1.2 A small conceptual network 1.3 Gradient of hierarchic relationships among constructions 2.1 Langacker’s (2008: 226) representation of a constructional network 2.2 Way-patterns at the beginning of the 17th century 2.3 Way-patterns at the end of the 17th century 2.4 Way-patterns at the end of the 19th century 3.1 Quantifier use of some size nouns in COBUILD (based on Brems 2012: 211) 3.2 The productivity cline (based on Barðdal 2008: 38, 172) 4.1 A schema for some lexical constructions in -able

6 10 17 51 83 85 89 116 119 153

Tables 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.2

Dimensions of constructions Motivation vs. mechanism Subtypes of the English impersonal construction Conceptual axes for work on language change Correlation of grammaticality parameters (based on Lehmann 1995: 164) 3.3 Compatibility of the development of a new grammatical micro-construction with Lehmann’s processes of grammaticalization 4.1 Lexicalization, grammaticalization, or both? 4.2 Relative frequency of four affixoids 4.3 Gradual and instantaneous constructionalization 4.4 Schematicity, productivity, and compositionality in lexical and grammatical constructionalization

13 38 69 99 101 123 159 177 190 193

Abbreviations ACC A(DJ) Agt ART CC Cxzn D-QUANT DAT DET DIR DIS EModE F FUT GE GEN GR HPSG INF LE LR M ME MODADJ ModE MORPH N NEG NOM NP O(BJ) OBL OE P PDE POSS PP PRAG PRES

accusative adjective agent article constructional change constructionalization quantifying determiner dative determiner directional discourse Early Modern English form future grammaticalization as expansion genitive grammaticalization as reduction Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar infinitive lexicalization as expansion lexicalization as reduction meaning Middle English Modifying adjective Modern English morphology noun negative nominative noun phrase object oblique Old English preposition Present Day English possessive prepositional phrase pragmatics present

xiv Quant Rec SAI SBCG SEM SG SUBJ SUPER SYN UG V VITR VP VTR X, Y, Z

Abbreviations quantity recipient subject-auxiliary inversion Sign-Based Construction Grammar semantics singular subject superlative syntax universal grammar verb intransitive verb verb phrase transitive verb variables

Inventory of notation [[F] $ [M]] $ > ## ______ ----... small caps | .

construction (whether micro- or schema level) symbolic link between form and meaning ‘is neoanalyzed as/becomes’ ‘feeds’ strong link between nodes weak link between nodes underspecified a lexical construction unspecified for morphological status (e.g. dom) compound (e.g. pick|pocket) affixoid (e.g. -hede in Middle English) affix (e.g. .ness)

Data bases and electronic corpora American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2011. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 5th ed. BNC British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp. ox.ac.uk/. Bosworth-Toller An Anglo-Saxon dictionary, based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth (first edition 1898) and Supplement (first edition 1921), ed. by Joseph Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller. Digital edition by Sean Crist in 2001. http://www. bosworthtoller.com/node/62873. CEEC Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, and Minna PalanderCollin. Department of English, University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/ CoRD/corpora/CEEC/index.html. CL Abbreviation for CLMETEV used in citations. CLMETEV The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version). 2006. Compiled by Hendrik De Smet. Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven. http://www. helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/CLMETEV/. COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English. 2008–. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. COHA Corpus of Historical American English. 2010–. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/. CWO Collins Wordbanks Online. http://www.collinslanguage.com/content-solutions/wordbanks. DOEC Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2011. Original release 1981 compiled by Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Sharon Butler, and Antonette diPaolo Healey. Release 2009 compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey, Joan Holland, Ian McDougall, and David McDougall, with Xin Xiang. University of Toronto. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/ CoRD/corpora/DOEC/index.html. FROWN The Freiburg-Brown Corpus. Original release 1999 compiled by Christian Mair. Release 2007 compiled by Christian Mair and Geoffrey Leech. http://www.helsinki.fi/ varieng/CoRD/corpora/FROWN/. Google http://www.google.com/. Google Books http://books.google.com/. HC Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena RaumolinBrunberg (Early Modern English). Department of English, University of Helsinki. http:// www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/index/html ICAME International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English. http://icame. uib.no/.

Data bases and electronic corpora

xvii

Innsbruck Prose Sampler Corpus Sampler now included in Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose. http://www.uibk.ac.at/anglistik/projects/icamet/. LION EEBO Early English Books Online, http://lion.chadwyck.com. LION Literature Online, 1996–. http://lion.chadwyck.com. MED The Middle English Dictionary. 1956–2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/. OBP The Old Bailey Proceedings Online, 1674–1913. 2012. Tim Hitchcock, Robert Shoemaker, Clive Emsley, Sharon Howard, and Jamie McLaughlin, et al. www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 7.0. OED Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com/. PPCMBE Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. 2010. Compiled by Anthony Kroch, Beatrice Santorini, and Ariel Diertani. University of Pennsylvania. http://www.ling. upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE-RELEASE-1/index.html. SBCSAE Santa Barbara Corpus of American Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. 2000–2005. Du Bois, John, et al. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium. http://www.linguistics. ucsb.edu/research/sbcorpus_contents.html. TIME Time Magazine Corpus. 2007–. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/time. Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/.

1 The Framework 1.1 Introduction In this book we take a constructionalist approach to language change. As has been suggested from a synchronic perspective by several current researchers in cognitive linguistics, among them Goldberg (2006) and Langacker (2008), in a constructionalist model language is conceptualized as being made up of form-meaning pairings or ‘constructions’ organized in a network. The question we address is how we can account for change in the linguistic system, given this model of language. Our focus is on developing ways to think about the creation of and the nature of changes in constructions, understood as ‘conventional symbolic units’ (see e.g. Langacker 1987; Croft 2005). Constructions are conventional in that they are shared among a group of speakers. They are symbolic in that they are signs, typically arbitrary associations of form and meaning. And they are units in that some aspect of the sign is so idiosyncratic (Goldberg 1995) or so frequent (Goldberg 2006) that the sign is entrenched as a form-meaning pairing in the mind of the language user. We are concerned in this book with two main types of changes: (a) Changes that affect features of an existing construction, e.g. semantics (will- ‘intend’ > future), morphophonology (will > ’ll), collocational constraints (expansion of the way-construction to include verbs denoting actions accompanying creation of a path, e.g. whistle one’s way home), etc. These changes do not necessarily lead to a new construction. We call them ‘constructional changes’. (b) The creation of a formnew-meaningnew pairing. We call this type of change ‘constructionalization’.1 The characterizations in (a) and (b) are preliminary. Constructionalization and the constructional changes that lead up to and follow it are the topic of this book and will be defined more fully in section 1.5 below. We aim to show how a constructional perspective can be used to rethink and incorporate aspects of prior work on grammaticalization and lexicalization, and to 1

The term ‘constructionalization’ appears to have been used first in Rostila (2004) and Noël (2007).

2

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

constructively address some questions that have arisen in connection with those topics. Although the data we discuss is from the history of English, our hope is to develop a framework that will be fruitful in the study of constructions and change in languages generally. Three assumptions are foundational to our approach. The first is that while certain properties of grammar, such as networks, hierarchic organization and inheritance, may be universal, and shared with other cognitive systems, grammar itself, understood as knowledge of a linguistic system, is language-specific, that is, it is tied to the structure of an individual language such as English, Arabic, or Japanese. The second assumption is that change is change in usage, and that the locus of change is the construct, an instance of use. Thirdly, we distinguish between change and innovation. Innovation, as a feature of an individual mind, is only potential for change. For an innovation to count as a change, it must have been replicated across populations of speakers resulting in conventionalization, the integration of the innovation in a tradition of speaking or writing, as evidenced by textual materials left to us (Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968; Andersen 2001). Innovation and propagation are in other words ‘jointly necessary processes for language change’ (Croft 2000: 5). The present chapter introduces a large number of concepts and terms as background to later chapters, where they will be discussed in far greater detail. We begin by outlining the main constructional approaches to language that have been developed to date (1.2) and introducing the concept of networks (1.3). We then go on to outline essential elements of our own view of constructions (1.4) and of various types of changes that affect them (1.5). Section 1.6 provides a sketch of research on language change especially relevant to this book, specifically grammaticalization, lexicalization, and prior work done from a diachronic construction grammar perspective. Section 1.7 introduces some of the problems associated with the search for evidence in historical work and lists the main digital resources on which the present work is based. 1.8 summarizes the chapter and outlines the rest of the book.

1.2 Constructional approaches to language Here we very briefly outline five different models of grammar that have been used by proponents of a constructional perspective on language and that will be referred to in the course of the book. Construction grammars adhere to general principles of cognitive linguistics (see Geeraerts and Cuyckens 2007a), and are constraint-based, not rule-based. Overviews of the different approaches to construction grammar can be found in Croft and Cruse (2004), Langacker (2005), Goldberg (2006), Croft (2007a), and Sag, Boas, and Kay (2012). Despite considerable differences among current constructional approaches to language, Goldberg (2013) has identified four tenets (a–d) shared by all, and a further tenet (e) shared by most such approaches. These are:

The Framework

3

(a) The basic unit of grammar is the construction, which is a conventional pairing of form and meaning (see e.g. Lakoff 1987, Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988, Goldberg 1995, 2006). (b) Semantic structure is mapped directly on to surface syntactic structure, without derivations (see e.g. Goldberg 2002, Culicover and Jackendoff 2005). (c) Language, like other cognitive systems, is a network of nodes and links between nodes; associations between some of these nodes take the form of inheritance hierarchies (taxonomic relationships capturing the degree to which properties of lower level constructions are predictable from more general ones, see e.g. Langacker 1987, Hudson 1990, 2007a). (d) Cross-linguistic (and dialectal) variation can be accounted for in various ways, including domain-general cognitive processes (see e.g. Bybee 2010, Goldberg 2013), and variety-specific constructions (see e.g. Croft 2001, Haspelmath 2008). (e) Language structure is shaped by language use (see e.g. Barlow and Kemmer 2000, Bybee 2010). In addition, all constructional approaches see grammar as a ‘holistic’ framework: no one level of grammar is autonomous, or ‘core’. Rather, semantics, morphosyntax, phonology, and pragmatics work together in a construction. In the remainder of this book, we draw opportunistically on a number of insights which have been proposed in the constructional accounts of language outlined below, without adhering to one particular type of construction grammar. However, our views are most compatible with those of Cognitive Construction Grammar (1.2.3) and Radical Construction Grammar (1.2.4). We adopt a usage-based approach to language and assume that linguistic structure is not innate and that it derives from general cognitive processes. These processes are actions in which speakers and hearers engage, including on-line production and perception. We will also be drawing on a closely related model of grammar known as Word Grammar, developed by Richard Hudson (e.g. 2007a). This model allows us to readily account for a crucial aspect of constructionalization: association with and attraction to particular subparts of the language network. Word Grammar will be very briefly introduced in 1.3, and discussed in fuller detail in chapter 2. 1.2.1 Berkeley Construction Grammar The groundwork for construction grammar was laid by Fillmore in his work on case grammar (e.g. 1968) and frame semantics. Fillmore coined the term ‘construction grammar’ (Fillmore 1988) and he and his colleagues have been developing it since the late 1980s exploring the hypothesis that some aspects of constructions might be universal. Fillmore and his colleagues initially focused on idiosyncratic expressions and idioms, e.g. let alone (Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988), and the schema what’s X doing Y, e.g. What’s this fly doing in my soup? (Kay and Fillmore 1999), having observed the frequency of such kinds of expressions in naturally occurring speech

4

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

and writing, ‘and their centrality in the linguistic knowledge of speakers’ (Fillmore 2013: 111). The linguists involved in this research also discuss standard issues in syntax and in cognitive linguistics, such as head structures, left dislocations, landmark, direction and magnitude, and other more general constructions (Fillmore and Kay 1997), showing how ‘the same analytic tools account for both most basic structures and these “special” cases’ (Fillmore 2013: 112). This variant of construction grammar is highly formal. Atomic2 category types are represented as features, and assembled into unified constructions. 1.2.2 Sign-Based Construction Grammar A recent development of work in the Berkeley Construction Grammar framework is Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG), e.g. Boas and Sag (2012). The main goal is to provide a formalized framework in which researchers on typological issues can develop testable hypotheses and reach increased common ground among construction grammarians seeking to identify universal properties of language including recursion, which often gets relatively short shrift in other models of construction grammar (Sag, Boas, and Kay 2012). There is also a strong commitment to psychological reality (Sag 2012). This means that ‘linguistic proposals are motivated and evaluated in terms of how well they comport with models of language use (e.g. production and comprehension), language learning, and language change’ (Sag, Boas, and Kay 2012: 14, citing Croft 2000, 2001; Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2006; Langacker 2000, 2009). The basic assumption is that language is a sign-based system (see Saussure 1959[1916]). While the Saussurean sign is a combination of form and meaning only, the SBCG sign embodies ‘at least phonological structure, (morphological) form, syntactic category, semantics, and contextual factors, including information structure’ (Sag 2012: 71). Signs are modeled as feature structures. An informal preliminary representation of laughed is (Sag 2012: 75): (1)

PHONOLOGY SYNTAX SEMANTICS

/læf–d/ V[fin] a laughing event situated prior to the time of utterance

Full representations are complex in ways that we do not adopt. However, our representations are expressed in terms of features like those in (1). 1.2.3 Cognitive Construction Grammar A different, and earlier, development of the Berkeley Construction Grammar framework is work by Lakoff (e.g. 1987) and Goldberg (e.g. 1995, 2006). Croft and Cruse (2004) call

2

‘Atomic’ elements are monomorphemic and not divisible into smaller form-meaning parts.

The Framework

5

this framework ‘Cognitive Construction Grammar’. Goldberg (1995) focuses on argument structure constructions such as the English ditransitive (‘double object’) construction (as in I gave/baked John a cake), the caused motion construction (as in Frank sneezed the napkin off the table), and the way-construction (as in He elbowed his way through the crowd). In her 1995 model, as in Fillmore’s approach, emphasis is primarily on patterns not strictly predictable from their component parts, e.g. patterns illustrated by elbow POSS way DIR,3 sneeze X off Y. Crucially in relation to argument structure, the objective is to demonstrate commonalities among predicates in specific constructions: the construal of the motion of the napkin brought about by the sneezing event is associated with the more general English caused motion construction, not with the specific lexical predicate sneeze (Goldberg 1995: 152, 224). In other words, such constructions are patterns that ‘exist independently of lexical argument-taking predicates’ (Boas 2013: 235). Goldberg (1995: 4) defined constructions as pairings of form and meaning where some aspect of the form, or some aspect of the meaning, is not derivable from either the combination of component parts, or from other pre-existing constructions. More recently, she has expanded the concept of construction to embrace compositional strings which ‘are stored as constructions even if they are fully predictable, as long as they occur with sufficient frequency’ (Goldberg 2006: 5). A central feature of Goldberg’s construction grammar is that constructions are of any size, from complex sentences down to inflectional affixes (Goldberg 2003, 2006). Language is argued to be learned in chunks, and constructions are ‘learned pairings of form with semantic or discourse function’ (Goldberg 2006: 5), which vary in make-up (from schematic, through partially schematic, to wholly specified expressions), size, shape, and complexity. The paradigmatic dimension of pattern match and choice is of equal if not greater importance than the linear, syntagmatic one, and therefore similarities between constructions play a significant role in the model. The introduction of frequency in the definition of constructions raises interesting questions for the nature of linguistic knowledge because establishing what level of frequency is sufficient for pattern storage and entrenchment is problematic (see Blumenthal-Dramé 2012 on this and other issues with ‘entrenchment’). It is particularly problematic in historical work where the textual record is often minimal. The necessary frequency for entrenchment is ‘gradual and relative, not categorical or universal’ (Clark and Trousdale 2009: 38). We associate ‘sufficient frequency’ with replication and conventionalization in the textual record. Representations in Goldberg’s model involve at least two levels: SEM(antics) and SYN(tax), as in (2), which is a representation of the GoVPbare construction as in Go tell your sister to come here (based on Goldberg 2006: 54):

3 In chapter 2.7 we discuss why DIR is preferable to the more commonly used OBL for the wayconstruction.

6 (2)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes SEM: Move | SYN:

in order to do an action |

V (go, come, run)

VPbare

They may involve more levels, as in (3), in which the PRAG(matic) dimension of negative evaluation is significant. (3) is a representative of a similar-looking but nonmotion GoVPing construction, as in Pat’ll go telling Chris what to do (Goldberg 2006: 53) which implies that the speaker has a negative attitude toward the action: (3)

PRAG: The action denoted by VP is construed negatively by the speaker SEM:

Action type |

SYN:

go

[Ving …]VP

1.2.4 Radical Construction Grammar Croft (2001) developed an approach that he calls Radical Construction Grammar. This framework is explicitly concerned with the relationship between grammatical description and language typology. In this model constructions are language-specific and categories are defined language-specifically in terms of the constructions they are in, e.g. ‘intransitive verb’ (VITR) is a category in the intransitive construction in English, not in UG. Word classes such as ‘noun’ and ‘verb’ are to be understood in relation to ‘constructions expressing propositional acts (referring expressions, predication constructions, modifying/ attributive constructions)’ (Croft 2013: 218). Figure 1.1 shows how the links between form and meaning are represented in Radical Construction Grammar terms:

CONSTRUCTION syntactic properties morphological properties phonological properties

FORM symbolic correspondence link

semantic properties pragmatic properties discourse-functional properties

(CONVENTIONAL) MEANING

Figure 1.1 Model of the symbolic structure of a construction in Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001: 18)

The Framework

7

Croft (2001: 19) considers semantic meaning to refer to a ‘conventionalized feature of a construction’s function’, as do we, noting however that such features are not as fine-grained as in models such as SBCG. Croft’s model highlights the taxonomic nature of constructional knowledge, the hierarchic inheritance relationship between more general and more specific constructions, and the importance of language use in determining aspects of language structure. As Siewierska and Hollmann (2007) observe, a more fine-grained approach to constructional knowledge is needed in cases of dialect variation, but the critical issue here is that ‘no discrete universal construction types such as passive or coordination’ exist in this model for any variety of a language (Croft 2013: 227). As Croft shows, gross traditional categories of voice such as ‘active’, ‘passive’ and ‘inverse’ fail to do justice to the diversity of voice marking in human languages (Croft 2001). 1.2.5 Cognitive Grammar The fifth approach to construction grammar to which we refer is what Croft and Cruse (2004) call ‘Cognitive Grammar’ (e.g. Langacker 1987, 1991, 2005, and elsewhere). Langacker rejects the notion of a syntactic component of grammar and conceptualizes the sign as linkage of semantic structure (S) and phonology (P) as in (4) (Langacker 2009: 3). (4)

S Σ P

The absence of syntax in this model makes Langacker’s approach to constructions significantly different from those of Fillmore, Croft, and Goldberg (see Langacker 2005) and from that taken here.4 ‘Pivotal’ to Langacker’s model is the language user’s ‘ability to construe the same situation in alternate ways’ (Langacker 2009: 6; bold original). Construal involves perspective, specifically vantage-point and direction of mental scanning, as illustrated by the difference between come and go in (5a) and (5b) (Langacker 2009: 7): (5)

4

a. Come on up into the attic! b. Go on up into the attic!

However, see Verhagen (2009) for a detailed analysis of the role of form in construction grammar models. Verhagen concludes that the differences among the models with respect to the ‘intermediate’ level of syntax and morphology are less extreme than is often argued.

8

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

It also involves degree of ‘specificity (or conversely schematicity) . . . the level of precision and detail at which a situation is characterized’ (Langacker 2009: 6; bold original), as can be seen by comparing specific use of upstairs in (6) with (5b): (6)

Come on upstairs into the attic!

We do not adopt Langacker’s focus on construal, and assign an important role to syntax. Nevertheless, many of his ideas are foundational to the cognitive perspective we adopt and to the concept of constructions as a network of symbolic units, as will become apparent in subsequent chapters. 1.2.6 Our representation of constructions Before leaving this section on how we think of constructions, it is necessary to mention how we will represent them. As we have seen from the brief introduction to different models of construction grammar above, representations of constructions vary in the literature. In this book, unless we are citing other authors, we usually use the basic template in (7): (7)

[[F] $ [M]]

Here F is short for Form; as needed we may specify SYN(tax), MORPH(ology), and PHON(ology). M is short for Meaning; as needed we may specify DIS(course), SEM (antics), and PRAG(matics). SYN, MORPH, PHON, DIS, SEM and PRAG are ‘features of a construction’, distinctions made in Croft (2001). DIS refers to what Croft (2001) calls the ‘Discourse Function’ of a construction, such as information structuring (e.g. resumptive topic), or connective function (e.g. conjunction). Note it does not refer to discourse context (see chapter 5.3.6), but to the role in discourse, if any, that a construction may express. In our notation, we typically specify those features which are of particular relevance to the changes under discussion, i.e. which are salient for our understanding of the variation and change involved. We do not presuppose that these elements are necessarily cognitively salient for a given speaker at a given point in time (cf. Goldberg 1995, Croft 2001 on the nature of specification in synchronic construction grammars). The double-headed arrow, adopted from Booij (2010), specifies the link between form and meaning, and the external brackets denote that the form-meaning pairing is a conventionalized unit.

1.3 Networks and construction grammar A recurrent theme in construction grammars is the metaphor of a ‘network’. For example, Goldberg (2003: 219) suggested that ‘the totality of our knowledge of language is captured by a network of constructions’ and Croft (2007a: 463) identifies two fundamental principles behind construction grammar:

The Framework

9

(a) a pairing of complex structure and meaning, (b) association of these pairings in a network. This view of language structure is consistent with work in cognitive psychology, which treats other aspects of knowledge (e.g. long term memory, Reisberg 1997) as being organized as a network. One early line of thinking about networks focused on semantics and the lexicon (e.g. Lakoff 1987; Brugmann and Lakoff 1988). For Lakoff and for Brugmann the issue is primarily how to account for the many-to-many relationships among lexical items. They propose that polysemies radiate out from a prototype or ‘central meaning’ as extensions, e.g. the ‘central sense of over combines elements of both above and across’ (Lakoff 1987: 419); more abstract meanings, as in overlook, are metaphorical extensions based on this schema. However, most research on networks from a construction grammar perspective concerns form as well. For example, Fillmore relates lexical meanings to syntactic argument structure in what has come to be known as the FrameNet model of constructions (Fillmore and Baker 2001, 2010). FrameNet is a lexical semantic database that specifies the semantic type of a predicate, its semantic argument roles, and how they are realized syntactically, e.g. the verb conclude in this model can be understood as representing either the Activity-finish frame (8a) or the Coming-to-believe frame (8b): (8)

a. The game concluded in a draw. b. Bill concluded that the game was a draw.

Crucial to the idea of a network are such concepts as nodes and the links between nodes, ‘distance’ between members of a family, clusterings of properties, degrees of entrenchment and accessibility of a construction. These have been developed in considerable detail in Hudson (2007a), using a Word Grammar model that has many commonalities with construction grammar (for useful overviews, see Hudson 2008, Gisborne 2011). Word Grammar is based on the Network Postulate that ‘Language is a conceptual network’ (Hudson 1984: 1, 2007a: 1). It is conceptual in that it is cognitive, and a network in that it is a system of interconnected entities (Hudson 2007a: 1). Here, as in sign-based approaches, we find a precursor in Saussure. As Hudson (2007a) observes, networks were at the heart of the Saussurean characterization of language as ‘a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others (Saussure 1959)’.5 The critical issues for our purposes are that cognitive networks—such as the language network—are i) not limited to the lexicon as in Saussure’s work, and ii) dynamic: ‘New links and new nodes are continually being established’ (Hudson 2007a: 53). Therefore values are always in flux.

5

This refernce is to Saussure (1959[1916]: 114).

10

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

We illustrate the idea of networks with a simple conceptual network in Figure 1.2 that shows associations between basic-level concepts (e.g. ‘ashtray’), and the more schematic concepts that generalize over them (e.g. ‘furniture’). Borrowing in part notation from Hudson’s Word Grammar (e.g. Hudson 2007a), the base of the triangle lies alongside the supercategory, while the apex points to the subcategory.6 The lines are associations between concepts; an unbroken line represents a strong association between an instance and a more general category.7 The reason that ‘chair’ has an unbroken line linking it to the category ‘furniture’ is that it is a central member of that category. ‘Ashtray’ by contrast, is not a good example of ‘furniture’, though it does share some properties with more central members of the category (e.g. an ashtray is an item that is movable, and can be used to make a space suitable for living; it is not, however, large, as most items of furniture are). ‘Piano’ illustrates the concept of multiple inheritance—it has features associated with ‘furniture’ (and indeed may be used by some purely as furniture, and not as a musical instrument), but it is more centrally a member of the category ‘musical instrument’.8 manufactured item

musical instrument

furniture

ashtray

chair

table

…

piano

viola

…

Figure 1.2 A small conceptual network

The network model contrasts sharply with other approaches to linguistic structure, particularly some formalisms which have been used to account for grammaticalization phenomena, such as Roberts and Roussou (2003), or diachronic syntax more generally, such as Lightfoot (1999), which have adopted, by and large, an account of

6 As will become evident in chapter 2, we modify Hudson’s notational system in this book in order to illustrate that we consider the nodes in the language network to be constructions; however, Hudson’s system suffices here to show how mental concepts are linked in a network model. 7 It should be noted that broken lines (to represent weak associations between instances and the more general category) are not part of the notational system of Word Grammar. 8 Inheritance is discussed more fully in chapter 2.4.2.

The Framework

11

linguistic knowledge which specifies properties of distinct modules (Fodor 1983) and the interfaces between them. In cognitive linguistics, the network postulate does not describe a part of language—it describes the entire architecture of language, such that ‘[e]verything in language can be described formally in terms of nodes and their relations’ (Hudson 2007a: 2), and ‘language as a whole is a network in contrast with the more traditional view of language as a grammar plus a dictionary’ (Hudson 2007b: 509). This has significant repercussions for the differences between cognitive linguistics and modular accounts of language structure that not only distinguish lexicon from grammar but also establish boundaries between pragmatics, semantics, syntax and phonology (and sometimes also morphology). We will discuss network models in detail in chapter 2 and suggest ways in which Hudson’s and other concepts of ‘network’ are useful in thinking about sign change (see also Gisborne 2008, 2010, 2011). The issue of how to assess ‘distance’ among members of a network is central to arguments about the role of analogy and ‘best fit’ in change, and is addressed especially in chapter 3.3.5.

1.4 Constructions and factors relevant to them In this section we outline how we think of constructions, and propose a broad-based distinction between grammatical and lexical ones (1.4.1). We also discuss factors that have been cited by Langacker (2005, 2008), Traugott (2007), Bybee (2010), and Trousdale (2012a), among others, as relevant to the architecture of constructions: schematicity, productivity, and compositionality (1.4.2). 1.4.1 Constructions characterized Like Croft and Goldberg, we define a construction as a form-meaning pairing. This pairing can be thought of in terms of various dimensions, all of them gradient. Among them are size, degree of phonological specificity, and type of concept. Since the arbitrariness of the sign entails idiosyncrasy, idiosyncrasy is present in a construction by default. Therefore we do not consider idiosyncrasy to be a special dimension. There are, however, degrees of idiosyncrasy, and these need to be specified in a finegrained inventory of constructions. Finally, frequency is not considered as a factor since ‘sufficient frequency’ is not operationalizable (see 1.2.3 above). With respect to the dimension of size, a construction may be atomic or complex, or in-between. Atomic constructions are monomorphemic, for example red, data, un-, -dom, if, -s. Complex ones are units made up of analyzable chunks, e.g. pull strings or on top of. Constructions that are in-between atomic and complex include ‘cranberry’ expressions like bonfire, which are partially analyzable—while fire is recognizable, bon is not (for the history of bonfire < bone fire, see chapter 4.6).

12

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

The dimension of phonological specificity concerns whether a construction is substantive, schematic, or in-between/intermediate. A substantive construction is phonologically fully specified, e.g. red, dropout, -s, or may. A fully schematic construction is an abstraction such as N or SAI (subject-auxiliary inversion). Many schemas are, however, partial, by which is meant that they have both substantive and schematic parts, e.g. V-ment (a word-formation construction illustrated by enjoyment), what is X doing Y (what is that fly doing in my soup? ). In some models, a construction is by definition complex and involves some degree of schematicity. For example Bybee (2010: 9) defines a construction as a ‘form-meaning pairing that has sequential structure’. Minimally a construction in Bybee’s view must also ‘have at least one schematic category’ (p. 37). From a historical perspective, such a view of constructions is too limiting since many synchronic sequences may become monomorphemic over time, and schematic properties may be lost. This is true both in the lexical domain (cf. OE compound gar + leac ‘spear leek’ > ModE garlic; this is a relic of a small X-leac construction, see chapter 4.6) and in the grammatical domain (cf. OE complex be sidan ‘by side’ > ModE P(reposition) beside). The dimension of type of concept concerns whether a construction is contentful (‘lexical’) or procedural (‘grammatical’). ‘Contentful’ material can be used referentially; on the formal dimension it is associated with the schematic categories N, V, and ADJ. ‘Procedural’ material has abstract meaning that signals linguistic relations, perspectives and deictic orientation (see Diewald 2011a on the indexical nature of grammaticalization).9 In Terkourafi’s words, linguistic expressions encode procedural meaning when they ‘contribute information about how to combine [ . . . ] concepts into a conceptual representation’ (2011: 358–359). Such combinations include indexical reference and information-structure marking (topic, definiteness, etc.), argument-structure marking (case), and marking of temporal phase (aspect) or of relationship to time of speaking (deictic tense). The formal dimensions with which procedural meaning is usually linked are traditionally known as grammatical elements such as demonstrative, aspect, tense, and complementizer. However, the architecture of construction grammar puts lexicon and grammar on a ‘cline’ (Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004: 532) or ‘gradation’ (Langacker 2011: 96). Some procedural meanings, especially deictic ones, can be associated with referential contentful meanings as well (e.g. main verb come and go). The distinction between contentful and procedural components is not only gradient but subject to change, as has been well established in the literature on grammaticalization where it has been shown that 9 Bybee (2002a) proposes that knowledge of grammar is procedural knowledge. The term ‘procedural’ was originally suggested by Blakemore (1987); we adopt it without intending any theoretical connection with Relevance Theory. Another useful metaphor highlighting the role of grammatical items was used by Von Fintel (1995: 184), acknowledging earlier work by Barbara Partee, when he proposed a formal semantics of grammaticalization, and referred to grammatical meanings as ‘a sort of functional glue tying together lexical concepts’.

The Framework

13

lexical material may come over time to serve grammatical functions (for example, the lexical motion verb go came to be recategorized by speakers as part of the form of the grammatical future construction BE going to). Since in construction grammar terms, there is no ‘principled divide’ between lexical and grammatical expressions (Goldberg and Jackendoff 2004: 532), a constructional approach can enrich ways to think about the transition from more lexical to more grammatical expressions. Prototypical examples of contentful constructions are data, dropout, and of procedural ones are -s (marker of present tense third person, or noun plural) or SAI. Examples of constructions that are intermediate include the way-construction, which has contentful properties such as the referential differences between force/elbow/giggle one’s way through the room, but also procedural, aspectual ones (the construction, especially with verbs of manner or accompanying action such as giggle, implies iteration, see chapter 2.7). In sum, the ‘constructicon’,10 or inventory of constructions, contains items that have characteristics of all three dimensions mentioned above. In most cases, a construction can be characterized on all three dimensions. For example, red is atomic, substantive, and contentful, SAI is complex, schematic, and procedural. Table 1.1 summarizes the dimensions:11 TABLE 1.1. Dimensions of constructions Size Specificity Concept

Atomic red, -s Substantive dropout, -dom Contentful red, N

Complex pull strings, on top of Schematic N, SAI Procedural -s, SAI

Intermediate bonfire Intermediate V-ment Intermediate way-construction

1.4.2 Schematicity, productivity, and compositionality Three factors, schematicity, productivity, and compositionality are often discussed in the literature on construction grammar. How they are involved in various types and stages of change will be discussed in more detail in later chapters. Here only the barest characterizations of the key concepts and how we will use the terms are mentioned. 1.4.2.1 Schematicity Schematicity is a property of categorization which crucially involves abstraction. A schema is a taxonomic generalization of categories, whether linguistic or not. Kemmer says of schemas that they ‘are essentially routinized, or 10

The term appears to have originated with Jurafsky (1991). We allow schemas to be atomic, e.g. N, V. It should be noted that Croft (2005) rejects the idea of atomic schemas. 11

14

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

cognitively entrenched, patterns of experience’ (Kemmer 2003: 78), and Barðdal says they can be viewed from a primarily psycholinguistic perspective (Barðdal 2008: 45). Our approach is mainly linguistic (as in the work of Langacker, Bybee, and Croft). In our view linguistic schemas are abstract, semantically general groups of constructions, whether procedural or contentful, as discussed in the preceding subsection. They are abstractions across sets of constructions which are (unconsciously) perceived by language-users to be closely related to each other in the constructional network. Degrees of schematicity pertain to levels of generality or specificity and the extent to which parts of the network are rich in detail (Langacker 2009). For instance, starting with the generalization, the concept ‘furniture’ is more abstract and inclusive than that of ‘chair’ and the concept ‘chair’ in turn is more abstract than the concept ‘armchair’; ‘noun’ is more abstract than ‘count noun’. Alternatively, starting with the specific, a ‘dachshund’ is a ‘dog’ and a ‘dog’ is a ‘mammal’; an ‘intransitive verb’ is a ‘verb’, etc. Linguistic schemas are instantiated by subschemas and, at the lower levels, of microconstructions: specific type-members of more abstract schemas, e.g. may is a microconstruction of the subschema modal; modal is a subschema of the schema auxiliary. Subschemas can be developed over time (e.g. subsets of peripheral modifiers of the NP, Van de Velde 2011), or lost (e.g. subsets of ditransitive, Colleman and De Clerck 2011). Growth and loss involve constructional changes before and after constructionalization. In our view schemas and subschemas are the subparts of the linguistic system that the linguist picks out for discussion and analysis. They are not meant to be mental representations, though nothing prevents there being an overlap between such representations and linguists’ categories. The schematicity of a linguistic construction is concerned with the extent to which it captures more general patterns across a series of more specific constructions (Tuggy 2007, Barðdal 2008).12 Schemas are often discussed, as in 1.4.1, in terms of slots and how symbolic structures are assembled within them (see e.g. Goldberg 2006, Langacker 2008). For example, a construction may consist entirely of abstract ‘schematic’ slots, like the form component of the ditransitive schema [SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2], or it may be partially schematic in that it contains a substantive construction as does the way-construction ([SUBJi [V POSSi way] DIR]). Goldberg hypothesizes that speakers have not only ‘item-specific knowledge’ about particular expressions, but also ‘generalized or schematic knowledge’ about them (2006: 98). Therefore it is reasonable to think about actual token expressions (constructs, e.g. I gave John a cake, I baked John a cake), individual type constructions

12 Indeed, the term ‘schematicity’ has also been referred to as ‘generality’ in Langacker (2008: 244) and Trousdale (2008b). There are other definitions of schematicity. For example, in Bybee’s (2010) view schematicity involves positions (p. 57) and filling them ‘by a variety of words and phrases’ (p. 25). She also defines schematicity as ‘the degree of dissimilarity of the members’ (p. 67) and as degree of variation within a category (p. 80).

The Framework

15

(e.g. X give Y Z) and also larger, schematic constructions that generalize over them. In the case of the ditransitive ‘cause-receive’ construction Goldberg (2006: 20) defines it as syntactic [SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] linked with an agent understood to cause or intend transfer of possession, as in (9) (based on Goldberg 2006: 20): (9)

SEM: CAUSE-RECEIVE Agt Rec(secondary topic) | SYN:

Verb

|

|

SUBJ OBJ1

Theme | OBJ2

This schematic construction abstracts over many instances of use and several micro-construction types. Prototypical instances of the construction (e.g. I gave John a bike) involve a perfect match between the lexical semantics of the verb, and the constructional semantics; in other words, in the prototype ditransitive there is semantic coherence and correspondence (see further Goldberg 1995: 35). Given the polysemous nature of the constructional semantics, additional clusters of constructions, or subschemas, exist, linked in a network to the central sense. For instance, in I baked John a cake, the lexical semantics of bake X ‘cook X in an oven’ contribute part of the meaning; another part of the meaning is contributed by the subschema with a meaning ‘Agent intends to cause Recipient to receive Theme’. Other verbs, such as refuse as in He refused me the log book, entail refusal to cause to receive. As Boas (2013) observes, a potential problem with such abstract argument structure constructions as (10) is that they have the capacity to overgeneralize, and sanction (or ‘license’, ‘allow access to’) unattested constructs. As we will argue in other parts of this book, speakers often do overgeneralize and extend the boundaries of a particular construction. Such innovations may in time turn into linguistic change. In his analysis of the English resultative construction, Boas (2005) suggests that individual verb senses may not conform to the conventionalized pairing of form and meaning associated with the more abstract construction they are said to instantiate. These pockets within the network of English resultatives display their own idiosyncrasies, and ‘while very broad generalizations are captured by Goldberg-type abstract meaningful constructions, more limited conventionalized patterns are captured by more concrete constructions at various midpoints of the hierarchical network’ (Boas 2013: 239; see also Croft 2003, which provides a detailed account of subclasses of ditransitives and a critique of some of Goldberg’s 1995 assumptions about them). In terms of schemas, cause-receive [[SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] $ [cause to receive by means of V]] is more schematic than the intend-cause subschema [[SUBJ bake OBJ1 OBJ2] $ [Intend to cause to receive by means of baking]], since the first generalizes over verbs (V), while the second specifies a particular verb (bake) with general slots. Conventionalized, entrenched schemas ‘sanction’ their subcases, that is, they constrain and specify the well-formedness of their subcases (Langacker 1987: 66).

16

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Schematicity is gradient in two ways. For one, it is a ‘more or less’ factor, in that well-formedness is a matter of convention and sometimes sanction is only partial. As Langacker (1987: 69) says, ‘a considerable amount of nonconventionality is tolerated (and often expected) as a normal feature of language use’. We will show that this tolerance for nonconventionality is of great importance in change: partially sanctioned extensions of an existing conventionalized construction may over time become fully sanctioned instances of a more general, schematic construction, which has changed as a result of the speaker/hearer’s experience with language. A second way in which schematicity is gradable is in terms of the hierarchic distinctions that can be made. Israel (1996) argued in his discussion of the development of different subtypes of the way-construction that a distinction should be made between specific verbs that can occur in the construction, clusters of types, and a higher order representation ‘schematizing over prominent subsets of usages’ (p. 220). Positing a hierarchically intermediate level (Israel’s ‘clusters of types’, our ‘subschemas’) at least partially reflects the fact that language users appear to be sensitive to generalized patterns as well as specific information (Bybee and McClelland 2005). Seeking to maintain focus on both form and meaning, as suggested above, we propose the following minimal set of constructional levels as a heuristic for description and analysis of constructional change: schemas, subschemas, and micro-constructions,13 but these are not absolute distinctions, and over time the relationships between them may change as we discuss in later chapters. Microconstructions, in turn, are instantiated in use by ‘constructs’. Constructs are empirically attested tokens (e.g. attested I gave Sarah a book, She needed a lot of energy), instances of use on a particular occasion, uttered by a particular speaker (or written by a particular writer) with a particular communicative purpose. Constructs are very rich, imbued with a great deal of pragmatic meaning, much of which may be unrecoverable outside of the particular speech event. Spoken constructs contain many specific phonetic features which are rarely replicated; every time one says give or a lot of, for instance, the expression is likely to be pronounced slightly differently, depending on the context. Written constructs are also empirically attested tokens but, because of the medium, generalizations are made over phonetic detail. Crucially, for a usage-based model, constructs are what speakers/writers produce and what hearers/readers14 process. As usage events, they help to shape the mental representation of language (Bybee 2010: 14). How they do so will be discussed in chapter 2. Here we may mention that the consequence of production and processing

13 In earlier work (e.g. Traugott 2008a, b; Trousdale 2008a, 2010) we distinguished ‘macro-’, ‘meso-’, and ‘micro-constructions’. Schemas are roughly equivalent to macro-constructions, subschemas to mesoconstructions, so macro- and meso-constructions are redundant terms. They are not used in this book. 14 For ease of reading, henceforth ‘speaker’ will be used as a cover term for ‘speaker/ writer’ and ‘hearer’ for ‘hearer/reader’. The term ‘addressee’ is reserved for interlocutors who are deliberately addressed.

The Framework

17

is that the construct is the locus of individual innovation, and subsequent conventionalization (adoption by a population of speakers). Constructional change begins when new associations between constructs and constructions emerge over time, i.e. when replication of tokens leads to provisional categorizations that were not available to language-users before and can therefore be called ‘new’. For any set of schemas in the constructional hierarchy that the linguist is describing the highest level will always be a (partial) schema. Since schemas abstract over many micro-constructions, they are phonologically underspecified. Only microconstructions may be substantive and phonologically specified. Figure 1.3 further summarizes and exemplifies the distinctions, using the example of the quantifier construction. At the highest level, it includes all types of quantifier, whether indicating large, small, or intermediate quantity, or binominal and monomorphemic. At the middle level of subschemas distinctions are made between large, small and intermediate, and at the lowest level are various micro-construction types. Schema (e.g. quantifier schema) Subschema1 (e.g. large quant)

Subschema2 (e.g. small quant)

Micro-Cxn1

Micro-Cxn2

Micro-Cxn3

Micro-Cxn4

many

a lot of

few

a bit of

FIGURE 1.3 Gradient of hierarchic relationships among constructions

1.4.2.2 Productivity Productivity is a term that has been used in a number of different ways. Barðdal (2008: chapter 2) provides a valuable overview and analysis of a number of different uses of the term. In our view the productivity of a construction is gradient. It pertains to (partial) schemas and concerns i) their ‘extensibility’ (Barðdal 2008), the extent to which they sanction other less schematic constructions, and ii) the extent to which they are constrained (Boas 2008). In terms of morphology we can think for example of the degree to which the combining of an adjective plus -th sanctions the creation of new nouns. Nowadays this is considered to be unproductive, since few new nouns are created by the formula [ADJ + th]. By contrast, [ADJ + ness] is much more productive, and this schema sanctions a wide range of less general forms, some more conventionalized than others (cf. truthiness, truthlikeness, unputdownableness, and sing-along-able-ness, all recently attested in on-line discourse). A similar situation holds for aspects of inflectional morphology. Past tense in English is productively marked by affixation (e.g. play – played), but it is sometimes marked by change in the stem vowel (e.g. drink – drank), a historical relic of ablaut. When new verbs are introduced into the language, their past tense is

18

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

usually formed by the more productive and ‘regular’ method of affixation rather than by the vowel change—the past tense of skype (‘to make a video call via the internet’) is skyped, not, for example *skope (based on write-wrote). Much work on productivity is concerned with frequency. Baayen (2001) and Bybee (2003 and elsewhere) have importantly distinguished type frequency (the number of different expressions a particular pattern has) from token frequency (the number of times the same unit occurs in text). We equate construction frequency with type frequency and construct frequency with token frequency. The definite article the in English has a construction type-frequency of one, but it is the most token-frequent construct in the contemporary language. When new constructions are formed, they typically ‘spread by gradually increasing their frequency of use over time’ (Bybee and McClelland 2005: 387). We understand ‘increase in frequency of use’ to mean increased construct frequency: speakers use instances of the new construction more and more. Here routinization, automatization (Pawley and Syder 1983; Haiman 1994) resulting from frequent use and repetition are key factors. Increased collocational range, a phenomenon that Himmelmann (2004) calls ‘host-class expansion’, is also a hallmark of increased productivity. We consider this to be an increase in construction typefrequency. For example, once BE going to was used as a marker of future it was extended to more and more verb types. An approach to investigating this kind of change that is grounded in construction grammar is diachronic distinctive ‘collostructional’ analysis (e.g. Hilpert 2008, drawing on synchronic collostructional analysis developed in Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004). Diachronic distinctive collostructional analysis uses corpus data to track historical shifts in collocational patterns, that is, to track changes in the items that fill constructional slots, e.g. changes in the verb types that follow BE going to, and to identify the most attracted collocates in one period versus another: Shifts such as these indicate developments in constructional meaning—as the construction changes semantically, it comes to be used with different collocates. Newly incoming collocates not only show that some change is underway; their lexical meanings further indicate how the construction changes semantically. (Hilpert 2012: 234)

The collocates identified in collostructional analysis tend to come in sets. For example, Hilpert (2008: chapter 3) shows that in the first seventy years of EModE shall collocated with verbs of perception (understand, perceive) or appearance (show, appear), and was extended in the second EModE period to administrative, legal acts (forfeit, incur, offend). By contrast, will during the same period is favored first with speech act verbs such as deny, confess, and then with an expanded set including condemn, speak. Such expansion inevitably has an effect on ‘constructional space’ and the competition between alternative constructions within a set, for example, competing constructions may come to be preferred in particular ‘niches’ (Torres-Cacoullos and Walker 2009) or some may decline (Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith 2009). As we will see in the chapters that follow, it is important to recognize

The Framework

19

that there is no predictable time-frame for the interaction of productivity and nonproductivity. Productivity may be short-lived while non-productive patterns may persist for long periods of time (Nørgård-Sørensen, Heltoft, and Schøsler 2011: 38). 1.4.2.3 Compositionality Compositionality is concerned with the extent to which the link between form and meaning is transparent. Compositionality is usually thought of in terms of both semantics (the meaning of the parts and of the whole) and the combinatorial properties of the syntactic component: ‘Syntax is compositional in that it builds more complex well-formed expressions recursively, on the basis of smaller ones, while semantics is compositional in that it constructs the meanings of larger expressions on the basis of the meanings of smaller ones (ultimately words, or rather morphemes)’ (Hinzen, Werning, and Machery 2012: 3). According to Partee (1984: 281) in her discussion of compositionality, ‘the meaning of an expression is a function of the meanings of its parts and the way they are syntactically combined’. From a constructional point of view, compositionality is best thought of in terms of match or mismatch between aspects of form and aspects of meaning (see Francis and Michaelis 2003 on incongruence and mismatch). If a construct is semantically compositional, then as long as the speaker has produced a conventional sequence syntactically, and the hearer understands the meaning of each individual item, the hearer will be able to decode the meaning of the whole. If it is not compositional, there will be mismatch between the meaning of individual elements and the meaning of the whole. Our approach is in line with that of Arbib: language meaning is not entirely compositional, but language has compositionality in the sense that the compositional structure of a sentence will often provide cues to the meaning of the whole. (Arbib 2012: 475, italics original)

Consider example (10): (10)

If you’re late, you won’t be served.

While speakers of English learn compositional constructions of the type in (10), they also have to learn that superficially very similar structures must be understood and analyzed differently, and the form can be associated with a particular semantic value that does not match the syntax (and is therefore less compositional). Thus speakers learn a pseudoconditional construction, with a pseudo-protasis and a pseudo-apodosis, as in (11). (11)

[I]f you’re Betty Ford right now, you’re probably thinking, you know, I hope everybody’s OK. (Kay and Michaelis 2012: 2272)

In this case the construction is semantically non-compositional as it does not convey a conditional about identity between Betty Ford and the addressee15 but rather an

15

You can also be used impersonally here in the sense of ‘someone’.

20

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

observation about Betty Ford and people like her. Some degree of hypotheticality is cued by the conditional syntax. Many utterances may be underspecified with respect to a compositional and a non-compositional interpretation. Consider (12): (12)

My yoga instructor sometimes pulls my leg. (Kay and Michaelis 2012: 2274)

Users of English must learn that the expression pull someone’s leg has the noncompositional meaning ‘tease someone’ in addition to the literal one. Construction grammarians are interested in the extent to which such non-compositional meanings pervade the grammar of a language, treat both compositional and non-compositional examples as conventionalized pairings of form and meaning, and consider the noncompositional set to be stylistically, pragmatically or semantically marked in various ways. We will see that in many cases change over time results in reduced compositionality, most especially at the micro-constructional level. Bybee (2010: 44–5), citing Langacker (1987), makes a distinction between compositionality and analyzability, a distinction we will make use of in later chapters. Bybee’s example is of English past tense forms like was, were, went, which are semantically compositional but morphologically unanalyzable (and suppletive). The concepts compositionality and analyzability are related, and both are gradient. Analyzability, unlike compositionality, is not primarily associated with the imputed match of the meaning of whole across the meaning of the parts of a composite expression. Rather, it is concerned with the extent to which speakers recognize, and treat distinctly, those component parts (see also Hengeveld’s 2011 concept of ‘transparency’). An idiom like by and large ‘largely’ is less analyzable than an idiom like fly off the handle ‘become unexpectedly angry’, and fly off the handle is less analyzable than an idiom like spill the beans ‘reveal a secret’. By and large is least analyzable because it has very little ‘internal’ structure (it has a phonological shape, but is highly idiosyncratic in terms of morphology and syntax). Fly off the handle is less analyzable than spill the beans because, while in both cases the verbs can be inflected, there is more freedom in modifying the noun in the latter than in the former (e.g. spill the political beans vs. *fly off the political handle). We consider analyzability to be a subtype of compositionality and therefore do not treat it as a separate category.

1.5 A constructional view of change In this section we expand on our view of change and especially on the distinction between constructionalization and constructional changes (see section 1.1). This is a distinction that has often not been made in other work on change from a constructionalist perspective (see e.g. Hilpert 2013), or if it has been made the distinction is drawn differently. For example, Smirnova (Forthcoming) identifies constructionalization with initial changes and constructional change with later ones, and Boye and Harder (2012:

The Framework

21

35–36) define constructionalization as ‘the overarching change into a new whole construction’, implying but not specifying difference from constructional change. Constructionalization is defined and exemplified in 1.5.1, constructional change in 1.5.2, and the relationship between them is elaborated on in 1.5.3. But first it is necessary to say a few more preliminary words about our view of change. As indicated earlier, like Goldberg and Croft, we understand construction grammar as a grammar of usage. From this perspective, linguistic change can be seen as ‘located in speaker-interaction and . . . negotiated between speakers in the course of interaction’ (Milroy 1992: 36, italics original). It originates as change in use by speakers of all ages (see e.g. Milroy 1992, Croft 2001), not solely or mainly by the child, as suggested by e.g. Roberts and Roussou (2003). Bybee (2010: 196) makes the stronger statement that children ‘are not the major instigators of change’ and change is not primarily transmission across generations. Instead, ‘change is postulated to occur as language is used rather than in the acquisition process’ (p. 9, italics added). Citing Warner (2004), Bybee provides evidence that change occurs during an adult’s lifetime. Certainly adults innovate, but as change presupposes transmission to other speakers, the main point in our view is that acquisition may occur throughout one’s lifetime, whether in childhood or later in life. Indeed, when hearers of all ages adopt structures transmitted by others, they acquire them. As Fischer (2010: 187) says, this position does ‘not deny the influence of some formal system of grammar’ but conceptualizes this formal system ‘as one that is transmitted culturally and not genetically’. It should be emphasized that change never needs to occur. This follows from a usage-based theory of change, since ‘language change’, including ‘sign change’, does not exist on its own. Whether something changes or not is a function of how people use language and of the way they evaluate certain expressions. Constructions are sometimes discussed in terms of ‘wholes’, e.g. ‘a grammar is composed of conventional associations of form and meaning, providing holistic descriptions of complex signs’ (Fried and Östman 2004a: 24). However, constructions have ‘internal dimensions’ (Gisborne 2011: 156), and, as we have seen, formalisms make use of multiple features. As will become apparent in this book, to account for change, one must be able to account first for innovations that apply to particular internal dimensions of a construction, and then for conventionalization of those innovations among a group of speakers. Foreshadowing fuller discussion in chapter 2, change begins with a new representation in the mind of a language user. The mechanism that brings about this new representation is what is widely known as reanalysis, but is more properly called ‘neoanalysis’ (see 1.6.4.1 below, Andersen 2001: 231, ft.3), the modification of an element of a construction. Neoanalysis often results from language-users’ (usually unconscious) pattern matching, a process known as analogy, but more properly thought of as ‘analogical thinking’. The recruitment of an item to a subschema that

22

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

may result from analogical thinking is a mechanism of change that we call ‘analogization’ (Traugott and Trousdale 2010: 38). 1.5.1 A characterization and example of constructionalization In 1.1 we preliminarily defined constructionalization as the creation of a formnewmeaningnew pairing, in other words, as the development of a new sign. Here we provide a more elaborate characterization that will be further developed throughout the book. Most particularly, the last point about gradualness versus instantaneity will be developed in chapter 4: Constructionalization is the creation of formnew-meaningnew (combinations of) signs. It forms new type nodes, which have new syntax or morphology and new coded meaning, in the linguistic network of a population of speakers. It is accompanied by changes in degree of schematicity, productivity, and compositionality. The constructionalization of schemas always results from a succession of micro-steps and is therefore gradual. New micro-constructions may likewise be created gradually, but they may also be instantaneous. Gradually created micro-constructions tend to be procedural, and instantaneously created micro-constructions tend to be contentful.

Minimally, constructionalization involves neoanalysis of morphosyntactic form and semantic/pragmatic meaning;16 discourse and phonological changes may also be implicated at various stages. Formal changes alone, and meaning changes alone cannot constitute constructionalization. We characterize such changes as constructional changes (see 1.5.2). Gradual constructionalization requires prior constructional changes to have occurred (the ‘succession’ of small-step neoanalyses). The new pairing of both meaning and form is a new unit or sign. It is therefore a change to the system, i.e. a type/node change. We can see its results in data when constructs begin to be attested which could not have been fully sanctioned by pre-existing constructional types. Typically, language-users may not be aware of the change having occurred (Keller 1994), but sometimes there are metatextual comments made by grammarians or others who observe change. We focus on two main kinds of constructionalization, namely grammatical constructionalization, and lexical constructionalization. These are at the poles of the contentful-procedural gradient discussed in 1.4.1 above. An example of lexical/contentful constructionalization is the historical development of the modern English word cupboard. Etymologically, two independent words were combined into the compound cupboard, which was used to refer to a piece of wood (board) on which cups were displayed. Over time, the compound underwent semantic change (a cupboard is now a closed storage area in a home), and a shift in morphological 16 A set of exceptions relating to instantaneous lexical micro-constructions (e.g. initialisms such as BBC) are discussed in chapter 4.8.

The Framework

23

status to a simplex form. In other words, it has become a new contentful conventional symbolic unit, new both in semantics and in morphosyntax. These changes form part of a succession of changes in meaning and in form, giving rise to a new semantically non-compositional contentful form, shared by a population of speakers, that emerged from a productive compounding pattern in the grammar. This was a constructionalization. The multiple small changes involved in the medial consonant cluster simplification of cupboard exemplify the kinds of changes which may take place before but most especially after constructionalization has occurred. In the case of cupboard the compound from which it derived was contentful and referential, and the output of changes is a contentful, referential noun. Other series of changes in form and meaning create constructions that encode grammatical formmeaning pairs that differ from their lexical sources in being less referential, more abstract and procedural. We illustrate this with reference to an example that we will come back to several times, the changes that occurred in the development of English binominal partitives meaning ‘a part/share of NP’ like a lot/bit/shred of a N into grammatical quantifiers (Traugott 2008a, Brems 2003, 2010, 2011).17 Because we use the example to illustrate several points in this chapter, the initial account here is quite detailed. Nevertheless, here as elsewhere, we do not seek to be exhaustive. We intend only to illustrate key points about the original and later constructions, the changes involved, and our constructional approach to the changes in question. In OE hlot ‘lot’ referred to an object, often a piece of wood, by which individuals were selected, e.g. for office, often with appeals to God (cf. draw lots, lottery, lot ‘fate’), and by metonymy to a share/unit of something gained by this means (cf. lot of land (for sale)) or to fate that determined the selection (cf. one’s lot in life). (13) is an early ME example of the partitive lot with of: (13) He ne wass nohh wurrþenn mann . . . Forr to forrwerrpenn he NEG was nothing become man . . . for to overthrow aniʒ lott Off Moysæsess lare. any part of Moses’ teaching ‘He (Jesus) did not become incarnate . . . to overthrow any part of Moses’ teaching’. (c.1200 Ormulum, 15186; [MED lot n1, 2c]) A part implies a quantity, and in the same Ormulum text we find use of lot with a meaning close to ‘group’ (implying a fairly large quantity): 17 Strictly speaking, indefinite partitive expressions with this syntax are ‘pseudo-partitives’. There are some distributional differences from expressions with definite NP2 (e.g. a piece of the pie), but in English the differences are rather minimal. However, in many languages the two types are morphosyntactically quite distinct, e.g. in Swedish the partitive is instantiated by the preposition av, while the pseudo-partitive is zero (Selkirk 1977, Koptjesvskaya-Tamm 2009). Here we treat the two types of partitive together, although a more restrictive, fine-grained distinction between pseudo-partitives and partitives would of course be necessary for cross-linguistic comparison.

24

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(14) Aʒʒ wass i þiss middellærd Summ lott off gode sawless. always was in this middle-earth certain group of good souls ‘There was always in this world a group of good souls’. (c.1200 Ormulum, 19150 [MED lot n1, 2e]) The constructs aniʒ lott Off Moysæsess lare and Summ lott off gode sawless illustrate referential, lexical uses of lot in constructions that are relational and therefore partially grammatical. In both lot is the head and of NP2 is the modifier. In both lot refers to a unit that is part of a larger whole. The schematic partitive construction, which has several members, can be characterized in stream-lined fashion as: (15) [[Ni [of Nj]]

$

[parti – wholej]]

While (13) is fully compositional, (14) is less so, in that ‘group’ is an extension of the literal meaning. However, lott in (14) is still contentful and referential. It cannot mean ‘many’ because of the presence of the specific indefinite summ, cf. ‘a certain group/some group of souls’, not ‘a certain many souls’. Clear evidence of the use of lot meaning ‘unit consisting of several members’ is provided by (16) in which Austen writes of Seward’s last remaining set (lot) of sheep, and of her father’s payment of twenty-five shilling for each member of that set: (16)

You must tell Edward that my father gives 25s. a piece to Seward for his last lot of sheep, and, in return for this news, my father wishes to receive some of Edward’s pigs. (1798 Austen, Letter to her sister [CL])

This use of lot is still available, but is largely restricted to sale transactions. In the eighteenth century we begin to find use of a lot of (and especially plural lots of ) in contexts in which the pragmatic implicature from a unit/part to quantity seems likely to have been inferred as salient: (17)

Mrs. Furnish at St. James’s has ordered Lots of Fans, and China, and India Pictures to be set by for her, ‘till she can borrow Mony to pay for ’em. (1708 Baker, Fine Lady Airs [LION: English Prose Drama])

Here lots of can be understood as units for sale, and indeed since money is mentioned, this may be what was intended, but it can also be understood as ‘large quantities of ’. By the beginning of the nineteenth century we begin to find several examples where a unit, partitive reading is incoherent and only a quantifier reading seems appropriate, as in (18): (18)

a. Learning at bottom, physic at top! Lots of business, lots of fun, Jack of all trades, master of none! (1833 Daniel, Sworn at Highgate [LION: English Prose Drama])

The Framework

25

b. He is only young, with a lot of power. (1895 Meredith, The Amazing Marriage [CL 3]) While a lot of used as a partitive can be substituted by a unit/piece/share of, the quantitative use is substitutable by much or many. With the partitive, number agreement is with N1 (lot(s)), as in (19). (19)

the worthy Mr. Skeggs is busy and bright, for a lot of goods is to be fitted out for auction. (1852 Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin [COHA])

By contrast, with the quantifier agreement typically is with N2. In (20a) agreement with goods is evidenced by the pronoun them, in (20b) agreement with rags by the pronoun they: (20) a. I have a lot of goods to sell, and you wish to purchase them. (1852 Arthur, True Riches [COHA]) b. pretty soon she brought down a lot of white rags. I thought they seemed quite heavy for their bulk (1865 Alger, Paul Prescott’s Charge [COHA]) With the appearance of examples like (20) we can infer that constructionalization has taken place. Not only has the meaning changed (partitive > quantifier), but so has the constituent structure (form). Specifically there has been a neoanalysis of the head relationship in the binominal that conforms to the essentially synchronic head distinctions proposed in Aarts (1998) and Brems (2003). There has also been neoanalysis of the preposition of as a phonological part of the quantifier. The neoanalysis can be represented in various ways. One is (21) (based on Brems 2003: 289): (21)

a lot

Head

of land (for sale)

Modifier

a lot of

Modifier

land/love

Head

Another, which we adopt here, is:18 (22)

[[Ni [of Nj]] $ [parti – wholej]] > [[N of] Nj]] $ [large quant – entityj]]

The succession of changes exemplified by partitive a lot > quantifier a lot of resulted in a grammatical constructionalization, the development of a formnew-meaningnew micro-construction that is more grammatical than its source because NP a lot has

18

See Traugott (2008a, b) for an earlier version.

26

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

lost its contentful meaning and its prototypical nominal potential, and become a procedural both in meaning (quantifier) and in structure (modifier). As was mentioned in 1.4.1 and will be discussed below in 1.6.3 and elsewhere, in addition to constructionalizations that are either contentful/lexical or procedural/ grammatical, there are also changes that result in part-contentful part-procedural constructions; we call these ‘intermediate’ or ‘hybrid’ constructions. One subtype of the complex predicate construction, illustrated by give someone a kicking, is partially ditransitive, partially iterative, and therefore partly grammatical/procedural, but it is also partially contentful/lexical as it may refer to verbal assault (Trousdale 2008a). In this book we will argue that the various types of constructionalization involve different kinds of changes with respect to schematicity, productivity and compositionality. We will also argue that the products of constructionalization may result in changes in schemas and subschemas. Furthermore, there may be differences with respect to gradualness of development. While developments of schemas, subschemas, and grammatical micro-constructionalizations are gradual, lexical micro-constructionalizations may be instantaneous, as illustrated by recent constructionalizations such as ebrary, Romnesia. 1.5.2 Constructional changes Gradual constructionalization is preceded and followed by a succession of conventionalized incremental steps, which we call constructional changes: A constructional change is a change affecting one internal dimension of a construction. It does not involve the creation of a new node.

In the example of the development of binominal quantifiers, first there was a pragmatic ‘invited inference’ of quantity, in other words the kind of implicature that arises in the flow of speech and may enable changes in meaning (for details see Traugott and König 1991, Traugott and Dasher 2002).19 We can infer that in the case of a lot of in the partitive construction (and also of others in the set such as a bit/shred of ) the pragmatic inference came to be salient among a group of speakers and was semanticized, that is, it became encoded such that a lot of was used in contexts such as (18) where ‘part, unit’ makes no sense. This semanticization did not ‘need’ to occur, as can be seen by comparing a piece/pieces of, which did not come to be used with the meaning much/many in Standard English (*I had a piece of anxiety). The changes involved were specific to a subset of partitive constructions and initially involved only

19 The term ‘invited inference’ is designed to emphasize the negotiation of meaning between the speaker, who (usually unconsciously, see Keller 1994; also Hagège 1993) ‘invites’ interpretations and the hearer who infers/interprets. It allows, but does not require, the possibility that speakers design their utterances pragmatically. A related term ‘context-induced interpretation’ (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991) emphasizes interpretation by the hearer.

The Framework

27

meaning and some distributional extension to nouns with different semantic content. At this point there was mismatch between form and meaning, since the syntactic head was that of the partitive (NP1), while the semantic head was that of the modifier (NP2). We cannot tell that constructionalization has occurred until morphosyntactic changes appear in the textual record as well as semantic ones. In the example under discussion, evidence for constructionalization is provided by verb agreement with NP2 showing that it is the head syntactically and semantically. In this case the mismatch between semantics and syntax can be said to have been ‘resolved’ by negotiations between Speaker and Addressee (or unconsciously between Speaker and Hearer), resulting in a new pairing that provides a more transparent reading: ‘quant-entity’ is matched with surface binominal syntax.20 Even so, the quantifier string a lot of has to be learned as a non-compositional unit. Even so, there is still a degree of analyzability (e.g. lot can still be pre-modified, as in There’s going to be a whole lot of trouble). Lack of total freezing is unsurprising given that unambiguous quantifier use of a lot of is not frequently attested until the nineteenth century, and analyzability is gradient. 1.5.3 The relation of constructional changes to constructionalization Constructional changes that can be hypothesized by the analyst to precede and enable or ‘feed’ constructionalization typically involve expansion of pragmatics, semanticization of that pragmatics, mismatch between form and meaning, and some small distributional changes. We call these ‘pre-constructionalization constructional changes’ (PreCxzn CCs for short). In turn, constructionalization may feed further constructional changes. Such ‘post-constructionalization constructional changes’ (PostCxzn CCs for short) typically involve expansion of collocations, and may also involve morphological and phonological reduction. For example, once the micro-construction [[a lot of] $ [large quant]] had come into existence its collocates expanded exponentially and it has recently been subject to various phonological reductions. Langacker (2009: 79) regards a lot of as monomorphemic in contemporary English, although for most speakers its earlier internal structure may still be accessible (as attested by its analyzability), and predicts that it may become fully grammaticalized as alotta (p. 77). This hypothesized reduced form is attested on-line in the form allota: 20 Focusing on the example of a bunch of, Francis and Yuasa (2008) zero in on its collective meaning, which may be construed in terms of either bundle or quantity, and argue that while semantic reanalysis has taken place, syntactic reanalysis has not. They argue that the quantifier is still mismatched in PDE because the syntax continues to be partitive (NP1 is still syntactic head). They discount agreement evidence on the grounds that a bunch of and even a lot of can have ‘group’, i.e. collective meanings, and collectives in English show variation in agreement patterns (cf. the committee is/are X). However, spellings as in What a buncha losers (Urban Dictionary buncha) suggest that for some speakers a bunch of has been neoanalyzed. Furthermore, Francis and Yuasa’s analysis works less well with a bit/shred of than with a bunch of since these are not collectives and do not have group meanings. Also, the greater phonological reduction of the quantifier than of the partitive cannot be accounted for on their view.

28 (23)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes That’s allota ducks (http://brookelynmt.blogspot.com/2010/03/thats-allota-ducks.html; March 31 2010. Accessed Sept 12th 2010)

Urban Dictionary has an entry for a lotta. There are also several sites on the internet devoted to clarification of the ‘correct’ spelling and distinguishing it from the verb allot, a sure sign of a change (of which people are aware). Although spellings like this are cues to internal fusion, they cannot be used as diagnostic of it since spelling can be highly conventional on the one hand or highly idiosyncratic on the other, especially in the on-line environment. However, partitive a lot (in so far as it is still used) is phonologically distinct from the quantifier; only the latter can be reduced. Abbreviating constructionalization as Cxzn, and symbolizing the feeding relationship by ##, we may summarize the succession of changes involved in constructionalization as in (24): (24)

PreCxzn CCs ↓↓ Cxzn ↓↓ PostCxzn CCs

This succession of changes may be recursive, in that PostCxzn CCs may enable further constructionalization. Examples include the development of procedural constructions such as the subordinator beside(s) from a prepositional phrase ‘by side’ and further constructionalization of besides as a pragmatic marker (see chapter 3.2.3) and the development of word-formations such as -ræden ‘status’ (chapter 4.5.2). The model has much in common with the models of grammaticalization in context proposed by Heine (2002) and Diewald (2002), but applies to lexical as well as to grammatical changes. Both authors identify developments prior to grammaticalization that involve at least pragmatics. One of the differences between the models is whether there are also morphosyntactic developments prior to grammaticalization. Another is whether changes after grammaticalization are specified in the model. The point at which grammaticalization of a particular element is inferred to have taken place is called a ‘switch’ context by Heine, and an ‘isolating’ one by Diewald. In our model of gradual constructionalization, there is a succession of developments; we expect that such a succession will involve changes in meaning or form or in both. There is also usually a succession of changes after constructionalization involving expansion of contexts (see Himmelmann 2004), but also loss of various kinds. The differences between pre- and post-constructionalization CCs will be discussed in more

The Framework

29

detail in later chapters, including the suggestion that the steps may be probabilistically predictable based on the original structure (De Smet 2012). We emphasize that ‘pre-constructionalization’ can only be assessed with hindsight—nothing of which we are aware predicts that certain constructional changes will necessarily lead to a constructionalization. However, observed constructionalization can be seen to have arisen from a number of small local changes in the context, as for example, development of uses of lot that mean ‘unit’ or ‘group’, and of ambiguous constructs, and we can with hindsight call these changes preconstructionalizations. Initially, constructional changes and constructionalizations are local, affecting particular micro-constructions. However, some of these changes can be seen as part of larger systemic shifts. For example, a precursor of the form of the partitive a lot of NP is in English a ‘possessive genitive’ in which the modifier was marked with genitive case as in (25). It could precede or follow the head. (25) On Fearnes felda gebyrað twega manna hlot landes in to In Fearn’s field extend two men’s parcel land.GEN in to Sudwellan. Southwell ‘In Fearn’s field extend a parcel/share of land large enough for two men into Southwell’. (Ch 659 (Birch 1029) [DOE]) By later ME the case system had broken down, word order was relatively fixed, and articles had come into being. Possessives of any type, whether partitive (a lot of land), possessive (king of England), kinship relation (mother of my daughter), etc. were typically expressed by of (originally meaning ‘out of ’), and the order was fixed as Head–Modifier.21 Furthermore, a was used to mark indefinites with singular count nouns in any NP. These are systemic changes, not particular to a lot or even to partitives. 1.5.4 Instantaneous constructionalization As discussed, a crucial aspect of most constructionalization is that it involves a succession of micro-steps preceding the creation of the new node. While all microsteps are instantaneous in an individual mind, and an individual constructionalization is instantaneous, the constructional changes which precede the new node creation are gradual in the sense that they occur in a succession of micro-steps. However, some new constructions are created with no prior constructional changes discernible. Invoking the network metaphor introduced in section 1.3, we call these 21

However, retention of the -s genitive and Modifier–Head order with animates (my daughter’s mother) is at least in ME a residual use of case (with -s selected in lieu of all other possible genitive forms), i.e. a constraint on case loss and reorganization.

30

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

on-the-spot changes instantaneous type node creations; for instance, words like sushi, table, or devour may be borrowed instantaneously as form-meaning pairs. Although they have histories among the speakers from whom they are borrowed (and may be subject to constructional changes after borrowing), they are not the outcome of small-step changes in the target language at the time they are borrowed. Borrowings are found primarily in the lexical domain. Occasionally, however, morphology may be borrowed, especially derivational morphology (e.g. -ity, -able/-ible) (see McMahon 1994: chapter 8); in this case sequential change may occur, since morphemes are usually borrowed initially with their base, and only gradually come to be used with other bases, eventually leading to a word-formation schema. Other examples of on-the-spot changes are the output of ‘conversion’, a wordformation strategy that allows speakers to use e.g. a noun as a verb instantaneously (e.g. to calendar/google/window). Yet others are acronyms such as wags (‘wives and girlfriends’, usually of sportsmen, particularly footballers) or scuba (‘self-contained underwater breathing apparatus’). Most words that are invented, many of them brand names such as Xerox, likewise do not involve any formal or functional changes prior to the new lexical construction being created. Nevertheless, some coined words may be on a continuum—quark, for example, though supposedly invented by James Joyce, resonates with question, quest, and other interrogatives, and therefore has a partial link with extant exemplars. We explore the issue of instantaneous microconstructional type node changes in more detail in chapter 4.8.

1.6 Diachronic work particularly relevant to this book In much previous work in diachronic linguistics, there has been a tendency to think of semantic, syntactic, morphological or phonological changes as largely independent, autonomous, and modular phenomena. However, recent research on interfaces between pragmatics and syntax (e.g. Hinterhölzl and Petrova 2009, Meurman-Solin, López-Couso, and Los 2012), syntax and stress patterns (e.g. Schlüter 2005, Speyer 2010), or prosody and semantics (e.g. Wichmann, Simon-Vandenbergen, and Aijmer 2010) has suggested that ‘pure’ changes, e.g. syntactic changes, are a construct of theories and methodologies, rather than realities of language use. A usage-based constructional approach, which argues that a grammar, in the sense of a linguistic knowledge system, is made up of form-meaning pairings, or signs, shifts the focus to links between form and meaning changes. In this section we discuss how the term ‘construction’ was used and sometimes continues to be used in historical linguistics, especially in work on grammaticalization. We also outline some key points about grammaticalization and lexicalization that are necessary for understanding our view of grammatical/procedural and lexical/contentful constructionalization, and provide a very brief overview of work in construction grammar that adopts a historical view, but is not restrictive in the way adopted in this book.

The Framework

31

1.6.1 ‘Construction’ as used in earlier historical linguistics The term ‘construction’ has been widely used during the past two decades in the literature on morphosyntactic change. It is not always clear what this term is meant to refer to. Usually it is not a form-meaning pairing in the constructionalist sense but rather a phrase or constituent, or the syntactic context in which a grammatical item develops. This in part reflects the tradition of Latin grammars, in which constructio was used to translate Greek sýntaksis ‘syntax’. Indeed ‘construction’ in historical linguistics has in the past been associated mainly or even exclusively with syntax, not lexicon; extension to the latter is largely associated with construction grammar perspectives. A fundamental concept in historical linguistics has been that change occurs in context and this context has often been called a ‘construction’. Implications of this concept will be discussed in detail in chapter 5. The insight is that changes identified as instances of grammaticalization do not occur independently of linguistic context, e.g. in the development of Latin dare habes ‘give:INF have:2Sg’ into 7thC daras ‘give: FUT’ (Fleischman 1982: 68), the main verb stem da- undergoes no morphosyntactic change.22 It is habe- that undergoes change in the context of a prior nonfinite verb. Therefore: [G]rammaticalization does not merely seize a word or morpheme . . . but the whole construction formed by the syntagmatic relations of the elements in question. (Lehmann 1992: 406)

Here ‘construction’ is clearly a syntactic notion and refers to a syntactic string or constituent. However, in the work of Bybee and her colleagues the term can be understood to have a meaning closer to the form-meaning pairing of construction grammar: It is the entire construction, and not simply the lexical meaning of the stem, which is the precursor, and hence the source, of the grammatical meaning. (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994: 11)

In so far as Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca hypothesize that ‘the development of grammatical material is characterized by the dynamic coevolution of meaning and form’ (p. 20), they appear to have in mind a grammar in which form-meaning pairings play a central role. However, they do not provide a theoretically articulated view of such a grammar. In general, it can be assumed that authors who use the term ‘construction’ do not have constructionalist accounts in mind unless they explicitly align themselves with construction grammar. This includes publications by the first author of this book prior to 2007, most especially Traugott (2003).

22

For discussion and exemplification of daras, see chapter 2.5.1.3.

32

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

The changes that have been the focus of attention in work on constructional change have been of the type that have widely come to be known as grammaticalization. It is to the latter that we now turn. 1.6.2 Grammaticalization Grammaticalization, and how aspects of it can be accounted for within grammatical constructionalization, is the topic of chapter 3. Suffice it here to say that grammaticalization has been broadly defined as ‘The creation of grammatical categories’ (Lehmann 2004: 183),23 and refers to the coming into being of grammatical markers such as case, tense, aspect, modality, mood, and connectives, etc. Standard examples include: (26)

a. Latin cantare habeo ‘sing:INF have:1sg’ > French chanterai ‘sing:FUT:1sg’. (Fleischman 1982: 71) b. Old Hungarian világ bele ‘world core/guts:directional’ > világbele ‘into the world’ > világba (inflected N bele > case marker ba). (Anttila 1989: 149, Lehmann 1995: 85) c. OE an ‘one’ > a ‘indefinite article’. (Hopper and Martin 1987) d. OE ænlice (an ‘one’ + lice ‘having the form of ’) > only ‘adverbial exclusive focus marker’. (Nevalainen 1991a)

At the risk of polarizing, there are currently two major views of grammaticalization (see Traugott 2010a for an overview). In the first tradition, grammaticalization is construed as involving increase in dependency and reduction of various aspects of the original expression (see e.g. Lehmann 1995, Haspelmath 2004). Many of the changes discussed are at least in part morphological, like (25a, b). We call this the tradition of ‘grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency’. In the second, for the most part, more recent, tradition, grammaticalization includes expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, and collocational range (Himmelmann 2004). Many of the changes discussed in this tradition are syntax- and discourse-related as well as morphological. Therefore examples like those in (27) are discussed in addition to those in (26). (27a) exemplifies the development of pragmatic markers, (27b) that of specificational information-structuring: (27)

a. say (imperative of main verb say) > ‘for example, suppose’ (Brinton 2006: 89); only ‘exclusive focus marker’ > ‘except, discourse-connective’. (Brinton 1998, Meurman-Solin 2012) b. All I did was to X (‘everything I did was for the purpose of X’) > All I did was X (‘the only thing I did was X’). (Traugott 2008c)

We call this the tradition of ‘grammaticalization as expansion’.

23

Lehmann does, however, express concern that this view may encompass too much.

The Framework

33

The differences in approach depend in part on what the researchers’ view of ‘grammar’ is. For example, restrictive accounts of grammar typically do not include pragmatic markers, and prior to work on comparative syntax initiated by Rizzi (1997) they usually did not include information structure. It also depends on whether the focus is on structural changes, which may involve reduction not only of form but also of contentful meaning (‘bleaching’), or on the consequences of this reduction for use in terms of increased productivity and frequency of use. For example, Lehmann’s (2008) work on changes in contrastive information structuring highlights reduction from two to one clause, while Traugott’s (2008c) on the development of pseudo-clefts highlights increase in the types of context available. Since construction grammar is all-inclusive and includes pragmatic markers within grammar, a non-restrictive view of grammaticalization is consistent with construction grammar. And since the type of construction grammar adopted here is usage-based, it is consistent with grammaticalization as expansion as well as reduction. In the course of this book we will show that expansion and reduction are not orthogonal, but intertwined during change. 1.6.3 Lexicalization The term lexicalization is usually understood rather differently in the synchronic and diachronic linguistic literature, although in both perspectives the domain of research is coding of substantive, contentful meaning (Brinton and Traugott 2005). For many synchronic researchers, ‘lexicalized’ means ‘has a segmental expression’. Most notably, in Talmy’s work (e.g. 1985, 2000) ‘lexicalization’ is used for packaging or encoding of cognitive scenarios such as motion, path, and manner. In particular, he is concerned with the conflation of semantic path and manner/cause of motion. He distinguishes Chinese and all branches of Indo-European except Romance, as languages that ‘lexicalize’ Motion + Manner/Cause together and treat Path as satellite (e.g. The rock slid down the hill [slide = Motion + Manner (coasting on a slippery surface), down the hill = Path]). By contrast Romance, Semitic, Polynesian, Atsugewi, and Navajo encode Motion + Path and are said to treat Manner as satellite (e.g. Spanish la botella entró a la cueva flotando ‘the bottle entered the cave floating’). Interestingly, Latin, the putative predecessor of Romance, like English, encoded Motion + Manner/Cause. Most recently, Beavers, Levin, and Tham (2010) have gathered together many cross-linguistic studies that show Talmy’s original typology is overly simplistic: motion, path, and manner/cause may be packaged in a number of different ways in most languages for a variety of reasons including contact and borrowing. Beavers, Levin, and Tham argue that complexity of expression and biases in the lexical inventories of languages lead to the preferences Talmy, and others after him, have identified. This kind of lexical encoding has been little studied from a diachronic perspective, and will not be pursued further in this book (but see suggestions in Slobin 2004, and for specific studies see Stolova 2008, Forthcoming, Fanego 2012a).

34

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

In the historical literature the term ‘lexicalization’ was used for a while with reference to some putative counterexamples to grammaticalization (‘degrammaticalization’), specifically the use of grammatical expressions such as up as full verbs or of if, and and but as nouns in ifs, ands and buts (see e.g. Ramat 1992, Campbell 2001, Van der Auwera 2002). As discussed in chapter 4.9, these are no longer considered counterexamples to grammaticalization (see e.g. Lehmann 2004, Norde 2009). Rather, they are instances of the word-formation known as conversion whereby any linguistic element, including a sound, can be made into a member of a major contentful category, in English typically a noun or sometimes a verb. Lexicalization has also been understood as in many ways similar to grammaticalization construed as reduction (see Brinton and Traugott 2005), in that it involves increased coalescence, fusion, and univerbation (Lehmann 2004). From this perspective, in lexicalization ‘a complex lexeme once coined tends to become a single complete lexical unit’ (Lipka 2002), e.g.: (28) a. OE god ‘good’ + spell ‘message’ > gospel. b. OE neah ‘near’ + gebur ‘dweller’ > neighbour. c. ME cup ‘cup’ + board ‘shelf ’ > cupboard ‘storage space’. Rather more challenging are examples such as those in (29): (29)

a. He curried favour with the boss ‘He ingratiated himself with the boss’. b. He paid attention to the speech ‘He attended to the speech’.

Here it is not possible to describe the new construction as ‘a single complete lexical unit’; rather it is a non-compositional, complex construction, and the meaning of the whole is primarily contentful (see ‘ingratiate oneself with someone’). More challenging still are the examples in (30): (30) a. He had a shower ‘He showered’ (not ‘He owned a shower’). b. He took a walk ‘He walked’. As Brinton (2008b) has argued, composite predicates such as the examples in (30) display properties which appear to be partly lexical and partly grammatical. The light verbs give and have + deverbal N in such examples have an idiosyncratic and partially lexical meaning, but they also appear to have evolved in English as markers of telic (end-point oriented) aspect. In this respect they are grammatical. Finally, and yet more intricate, are examples like those in (31): (31)

a. He gave them a talking to ‘He berated them’. b. He gave them a kicking ‘He assaulted them’.

It is not simply the case that He gave them a talking to is the atelic equivalent of He talked to them as the -ing might suggest. Rather, a more lexical interpretation is incorporated in constructs such as those in (30), with an added general sense of

The Framework

35

physical assault or verbal castigation (Trousdale 2008a). Complex examples like this are considered briefly in chapters 4 and 6. 1.6.4 Mechanisms of change A major question in historical linguistics is how language users add alternative mental representations of an expression over time. The usual approach, outlined here, is to refer to ‘mechanisms’ (the ‘how’) of change, contrasted with ‘motivations’ (the ‘why’ of change). The latter ‘Motivations’ can be understood in various ways, some sociolinguistic, such as prestige. Here we refer to cognitively-based motivations, such as analogical thinking and acquisition, as well as communicative ones, including wanting to present oneself as in some way unique or noticeable (or as a member of a group). ‘Mechanisms of change are processes that occur while language is being used, and these are the processes that create language’ (Bybee 2001: 190). The search has been for a small set of such mechanisms: By postulating a finite set of mechanisms attributable to human neuromotor, perceptual, and cognitive abilities, which interact with linguistic substance in acquisition and in language use, a range of possible language structures and units will emerge. (Bybee 2001: 190)

The primary mechanism of change discussed in the grammaticalization literature has been ‘reanalysis’ (our ‘neoanalysis’) where the focus is on difference from the source. More recently, attention has been paid to ‘analogy’, where the focus is on matching of the original source with some extant construction that is considered to be similar in some respect, and is treated as an exemplar.24 We explain below why we prefer the terms ‘neoanalysis’ to ‘reanalysis’ and ‘analogization’ to ‘analogy’. We will return to the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of change in chapter 2 with a more fine-grained set of hypotheses about processes involved in change. 1.6.4.1 Neoanalysis (‘reanalysis’) In his much-cited article of 1912 in which he introduced the term ‘grammaticalization’, Meillet famously said: Tandis que l’analogie peut renouveler le détail des formes, mais laisse le plus souvent intact le plan d’ensemble du système existant, la ‘grammaticalisation’ de certains mots crée des formes neuves, introduit des catégories qui n’avaient pas d’expression linguistique, transforme l’ensemble du système. ‘While analogy can renew details of forms, but usually leaves the structure of the existing system intact, “grammaticalization” of certain words creates new forms, introduces categories that had no linguistic expression beforehand, transforms the system as a whole’. (Meillet 1958[1912]: 133)

24 Harris and Campbell (1995) cite borrowing as a third analogy in morphosyntactic change. Important though the especially grammaticalization is (see Heine and Kuteva 2005, it here. Bybee (2003) treats frequency as a mechanism. In epiphenomenon of routinization and schematization, etc.

mechanism in addition to reanalysis and issue of contact in language change and Schneider 2012) we will not be addressing our view it is not a mechanism, but an

36

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Meillet did not use the word ‘reanalysis’. This is a term developed in the 1970s. A definition given by Langacker for reanalysis in morphosyntactic change has proved foundational: ‘change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modification of its surface manifestation’ (Langacker 1977: 58). An example of such a shift that is not manifest in a major modification of surface manifestation is the Head + Modifier > Modifier + Head shift proposed for binominal partitives > binominal quantifiers discussed in 1.5.1 above.25 Harris and Campbell (1995: 50) interpret ‘structure’ in Langacker’s characterization as ‘underlying structure’, and say this includes ‘at least (i) constituency, (ii) hierarchical structure, (iii) category labels, and (iv) grammatical relations’. Lat. cantare habeo > Fr. chanterai (25a) (which represents stages far apart and therefore exhibits surface manifestation of the reanalyses) illustrates constituency change (a phrase has become a word) and changes in category labels (the main verb of possession habe- has become a future affix). Since Langacker (1977) the notion of reanalysis has been extended from morphosyntactic to semantic and phonological change (see e.g. Eckardt 2006 and Bermúdez-Otero 2006 respectively). There are, however, some problems with ‘reanalysis’. One is terminological. If a language user who has not yet internalized the construction in question, interprets a construction in a different way from the speaker, ‘re’-analysis has not occurred, only ‘different’ analysis; strictly speaking, one cannot ‘re’-analyze a structure one does not ‘have’. This is why we prefer to follow Andersen (2001) and use the term ‘neoanalysis’. Another problem with reanalysis is that it is not manifested except when new distributions are modeled on the new covert analysis (Harris and Campbell 1995, Hopper and Traugott 2003, Fischer 2007). That is, we cannot know that a lot of was neoanalyzed without evidence of examples such as (18), where N2 cannot literally be divided into concrete parts, or (20), where agreement is with N2, not NP1. In the literature on grammaticalization there has been considerable discussion of whether grammaticalization is reanalysis as proposed in e.g. Roberts (1993). Heine and Reh (1984), Haspelmath (1998) and many others argue it cannot be. Most of the argument is based on the idea that reanalysis involves large-scale changes (see Lightfoot 1999: 87–91 on ‘catastrophic’ change) and is not relevant to the discussion of constructionalization in this chapter. The reader is referred to later chapters, especially chapter 2.6, where there is some consideration of related issues concerning gradualness (understood as micro-change in linguistic properties). Suffice it here to say that we regard neoanalysis as a micro-step in a constructional change. Micro-step changes, whether of form or of meaning, can be particularly well captured in models of construction grammar that use features (e.g. Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) models as exemplified in Fried and Östman 2004a, or SBCG 25 How non-manifest it can be is demonstrated by Francis and Yuasa’s (2008) view mentioned in ft. 20 that only a semantic change has occurred.

The Framework

37

models as exemplified by Sag 2012). To repeat, the development of the quantifier a lot of/lots of involves a micro-step neoanalysis from a pragmatic feature capturing the quantity implicature from the meaning ‘part’ to the semantic feature ‘large quantity’ that characterizes the quantifier meaning. For speakers using this analysis, constructional semantic changes led to a binominal partitive and binominal quantifier, both with lot in NP1 position. This is what Eckardt (2006) would call ‘semantic reanalysis’ (see also Nørgård-Sørensen, Heltoft, and Schøsler 2011). When this quantifier meaning became conventionalized a further micro-step neoanalysis led to a semantic head shift such as is illustrated by (18) where a partitive interpretation is implausible; this was a constructional change. Evidence from lack of agreement between a lot of and the following verb (20) suggests a further constructional neoanalysis involving syntactic head-shift. The result was a constructionalization. 1.6.4.2 Analogization (‘analogy’) At the time when Meillet wrote about grammaticalization the concept of analogy was rather different from that of the present day. It was largely restricted to specific exemplar-based pattern matching, and was not conceptualized as generalized extension of rules (Kiparsky 1968) or constraints (Kiparsky 2012). The role of analogy in grammaticalization has long been recognized. However, as frameworks for accounting for grammaticalization were being worked out in the latter part of the twentieth century, analogy was felt to be too unconstrained to be useful in a restrictive hypothesis about change (see e.g. Givón 1991). It has been only reluctantly accepted in some work on grammaticalization. For example, in keeping with Haspelmath (1998), Lehmann (2004) explicitly distinguishes what he called ‘pure grammaticalization without analogy’ from grammaticalization with analogy. Examples of ‘pure grammaticalization’ that he gives include i) numeral ‘one’ > indefinite article, and ii) demonstrative > definite article in Germanic and Romance languages, iii) spatial preposition > marker of the passive agent in Ancient Greek, and iv) personal pronouns > preverbal cross-reference markers in colloquial varieties of Romance (Lehmann 2004: 161). However, in the case of Lat. cantare habeo, which is attested in various orders, most of them with habe- preceding the infinitive, e.g. habeo cantare, it is assumed that the word order with habe- following the infinitive must have been fixed prior to the development of the inflectional future. Lehmann acknowledges that it is likely that this fixing was due to analogy with the already extant inflectional future, e.g. cantabo ‘I will sing’. He goes on to say that ‘analogically-oriented grammaticalization is still a kind of grammaticalization’, but concludes ‘the proprium (‘specific nature’T&T) of grammaticalization comes out only in pure grammaticalization’ (2004: 162). The role of analogy in grammaticalization is reassessed in Fischer’s (2007) book advocating the importance of analogy in change. Fischer draws on Anttila’s (2003) ‘analogical grid’ and argues that it operates on both paradigmatic (iconic) and syntagmatic (indexical) dimensions. She focuses on on-line processing rather than

38

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

structural properties of language use, and argues that analogy, not reanalysis, is the prime mechanism in grammaticalization (see also De Smet 2009). In the grammaticalization literature attention has shifted from the trajectories of individual expressions such as cantare habeo > chanterai, and from abstract clines such as main verb > auxiliary > clitic > inflection to ways in which grammaticalizing items may become aligned within a category or construction (the typological work of Heine and his colleagues has been especially important here). This is consistent with the attention paid to sets and networks in construction grammar. As will be elaborated on in chapter 3, we take the position that it is important to distinguish the process of analogical thinking from the mechanism of analogy, better called ‘analogization’ to avoid the ambiguity between thinking (a motivation) and change based on pattern match (a mechanism) (see further Traugott and Trousdale 2010a). Analogical thinking matches aspects of meaning and form; it enables, but may or may not result in change. By contrast, analogization is a mechanism or process of change bringing about matches of meaning and form that did not exist before. Likewise it is important to distinguish the process of parsing, which may enable (or ‘motivate’) different analyses from those current before, from the mechanism of neoanalysis, which results in new structures. The distinctions are summarized in Table 1.2: TABLE 1.2. Motivation vs. mechanism Change-enabling process

Mechanism

Analogical thinking Parsing

Analogization Neoanalysis

Most discussion of analogization is exemplar-based, e.g. ‘we need to conceive of grammar as based on constructions, and as having an exemplar representation in which specific instances of use affect representation’ (Bybee 2006: 714; see also Bybee and McClelland 2005). A constructional perspective on change strongly supports the idea that pattern matching is an important factor in change, because construction grammar highlights membership of sets. As we have seen, in discussing ditransitives, Goldberg is not interested in constructions that involve intentional transfer alone (e.g. give, pass, hand, feed), but also in the many other types of patterns that have similar form-meaning pairings, such as creation and intended transfer (e.g. bake, build, pour (a drink)), and communication (e.g. tell, ask, quote), and the fine-grained differences among them. From a historical perspective it is natural to ask how such sets came into being or were lost. Analogical thinking and analogization are essential for answering this question. We revisit the issue in chapter 2.3 in connection with the role of networks in innovation and change.

The Framework

39

1.6.5 Work on diachronic construction grammar What we here call ‘diachronic construction grammar’ (to borrow Noël’s 2007 term) is work that addresses historical change from the perspective of one of the models of construction grammar, with focus on the fact that ‘construction’ must be understood as a form-meaning pairing. As Noël points out, in construction grammar terms, although much of the work conducted has addressed grammatical change, construction grammar embraces lexical change as well. To date construction grammar has largely been applied to historical linguistics or the latter has been applied to the former, and new insights have therefore arisen. But no overarching view of constructional change has been proposed in these works, nor has an account been given of the special kind of change of the sort we call constructionalization. We attempt to fill this gap. Diachronic construction grammar is a field that has experienced a dramatic explosion of interest since the mid 1990s and only a few trends and references can be mentioned here. Israel (1996) is an early example of research which applied principles of Goldbergian Cognitive Construction Grammar to morphosyntactic change, illustrating some of the stages through which the English way-construction developed. Bergs and Diewald (2008) is the first edited volume devoted to developing a theoretical framework for combining construction grammar and morphosyntactic change. Historical work consistent with Goldberg’s (2006) views of construction grammar is to be found in papers in Bergs and Diewald (2008, 2009b), and Colleman and De Clerck (2011) consider specialization in the semantic evolution of the English ditransitive construction in the recent history of English. A Radical Construction Grammar approach to the development of English periphrastic causatives is developed in Hollmann (2003). A large number of works seek to combine construction grammar with grammaticalization. Representatives of this trend include Noël (2007) and many papers in Bergs and Diewald (2008, 2009). Brems (2011) brings together diachronic grammaticalization and construction grammar in her study of the development of binominal measure expressions. So does Patten (2012) in her account of the development of English clefts. Particularly important in this area is the work of Fried (e.g. Fried 2008, 2010, 2013). She has been concerned with the role of context in constructional change, an issue to which we return in chapter 5. She adopts a Fillmorean HPSG notation to model the relationship between the internal properties of the constituent parts of a construction and the external properties of the construction itself, as grammaticalization proceeds micro-step by micro-step. As is the case in the present work, Fried’s research on constructional change makes a distinction between constructions as ‘pieces of grammar’ (Kay and Fillmore 1999: 2) and constructs, the utterances which constitute the locus of innovation. Aspects of the approach to constructionalization developed here appear in Traugott (2007, 2008a, b), Trousdale (2008a, b, c, 2010) and Verveckken (2012).

40

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

While much of the work on diachronic construction grammar has been on changes in English (e.g. Israel 1996, Hollmann 2003, Traugott 2007, 2008a, Patten 2010, 2012, Colleman and De Clerck 2011, Gisborne 2011) some research in diachronic Construction Grammar has been carried out on other languages, such as Old Church Slavonic (Fried 2008, 2010), and languages of east and mainland south-east Asia (Bisang 2009, 2010, Horie 2011, Zhan 2012). Verveckken (2012) investigates the development of Spanish binominal quantifiers from a constructionalization perspective, and Verroens (2011) discusses the grammaticalization of French se mettre à, in part from this point of view. Nørgård-Sørensen, Heltoft, and Schøsler (2011) focus on changes in Danish, French, and Russian. In this work, as in that of Croft and Goldberg, constructions are conceptualized as usage-based language-specific formmeaning pairings within a non-modular theory of grammar. Nørgård-Sørensen, Heltoft, and Schøsler’s framework, which draws extensively on work by Andersen (e.g. 2001, 2008), is distinct in the focus on ways in which constructions participate in paradigms, or syntagmatic and semantic sets, whether morphological (for example, case), or syntactic (for example, word order). Other kinds of historical constructional work include comparative studies on the development of particular constructions in different languages, e.g. Noël and Colleman (2010) on accusative and infinitive (ACI) and evidential nominative and infinitive (NCI) verbs in both English and Dutch. Historical comparative reconstruction has also been approached from a construction grammar perspective (see for instance Gildea 1997, 2000 on the Cariban languages of Amazonia, and Barðdal 2013, Barðdal and Eythorsson 2012 on Icelandic). Since in constructional approaches to language, units from the morpheme to the clause are treated alike as form-meaning pairings, it is argued that the comparative approach to lexical and morphological items may be extended to syntax: cognates in the constructicon range from lexical items to argument structure constructions. As Barðdal and Eythorsson (2003) and Joseph and Janda (2003a), among others, have noted, syntactic structures tend to be more stable over time than is the case for phonological segments or morphemes. Yet Barðdal (2013) observes that the notion of a cognate is as applicable to argument structure constructions as it is to morphemes—patterns associated with case frames of impersonal predicates also lend themselves to syntactic reconstruction. Furthermore, the conventional/arbitrary nature of form-meaning pairings at the clausal level in the constructional framework supports the claim that syntactic reconstruction is as feasible as morphological reconstruction.

1.7 Evidence Because historical linguistics is an empirical discipline it depends on evidence. But as discussed in Fischer (2004) and Fitzmaurice and Smith (2012), the notion of evidence is not without problems. Data for the study of variation and change is largely indirect

The Framework

41

since it is the representation of language in written documents. This can provide only ‘hints as to what causes variation and change, hints about the mechanism that play a role in change; hints about what speakers do’ (Fischer 2004: 730–731). Furthermore, the textual record that survives from the earlier periods in many cases survives only because of accident, or may be hard to interpret. Most work is nowadays based on data bases such as electronic corpora and dictionaries, all of which use edited manuscripts, which may be more or less faithful to their originals (Horobin 2012). For example, much punctuation prior to the eighteenth century has been added by editors, and therefore syntactic structure may have been prejudged (see Parkes 1991 on punctuation practices prior to the eighteenth century). Since this is a book about historical change, most of the data is available only in written form. To maintain consistency, contemporary data that we use is also written. As pointed out by Kohnen and Mair (2012: 275) ‘[h]istorians of English have tended to regret that they had to reconstruct the authentic history of the vernacular from the “second-best” source of data, that is, literature and other written records rather than the lost and supposedly “real” spoken language’. For example, Labov (1994: 11) famously said that historical linguists essentially have to ‘make the best of bad data’. However this assessment has been tempered by a variety of observations. One is that prior to wide-spread literacy, most texts were written to be read aloud; therefore audience design has been a feature of writing as well as of speech for well over a thousand years in the history of English. Another is that there is a wealth of written data that represents or is close to spoken data, much of it now accessible through electronic data bases. Another is that not all change occurs in speech. Written data close to speech includes diaries, letters, drama, trials in England and the US prior to the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Culpeper and Kytö 2010). Prior to the eighteenth century, trials are particularly valuable as data since there were no defense lawyers, ‘prosecutors’ were typically individuals (a mother whose child was abducted or a silversmith whose spoon was stolen) who brought claims against defendants (see e.g. Archer 2006, 2007). Transcriptions such as those that make up the Proceedings of Old Bailey 1764–1834 have been shown to reflect speech factors like reduction of not to n’t (Huber 2007). More recently new technologies such as television, computers, and cell phones have led to the blurring of distinctions between writing and speech. While it seems reasonable to suppose that most change arises in speech because literacy is learned, and far from universal, nevertheless some changes appear to be based in writing. For example, Biber has studied the development of noun sequences such as communication protocol (see Biber 2003, Biber and Gray 2012) especially in newspapers, and has associated it with a growing tendency from the nineteenth century on toward information efficiency and economy. Although typically associated with writing, this phenomenon is also attested in spoken language (e.g. blood sports, career woman), and in this case written registers may have influenced speech

42

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith 2009: 219, ft. 22). Furthermore, even though writing is decontextualized one should not forget that it is interactional, designed not only to state, but to persuade, amuse, or otherwise engage the reader. Therefore written texts are not necessarily ‘bad data’. As a researcher, one needs to be aware that the written record that comes down to us is on a gradient from formal proclamation to informal notation. The amount of informal writing increased with the advent of printing on paper in the late fifteenth century in Europe. Being relatively cheap and easily replicable, this medium encouraged the representation and preservation of personal communication, but speech styles can be found in late medieval plays such as the York Mystery Plays, which were recorded in manuscript form before printing (Beadle 2009). In these God speaks in high style, but villains like Herod and Satan or comic characters like Noah’s wife speak in low style, with insults, curses, interjections, and exclamations. Over time there has, in English, been a consistent tendency toward ‘colloquialization’, the tendency for written norms to be adapted to speech, and this may be in competition with the tendency toward economy mentioned above (Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith 2009: 252). Therefore, where possible, it is important to distinguish structural change in language from change in literacy practices, which are based in cultural ideologies. It is also important to be aware of distinctions among text-types and their cultural significance. In this book we use a broad spectrum of texts, with attention to structural changes rather than to issues of speech versus writing, colloquial or formal register, except where these appear to be particularly relevant. We draw on a variety of electronic corpora, most especially the The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version) (CLMETEV, abbreviated as CL in quotations; nearly fifteen million words of largely literary texts from 1710–1920), The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA, a four hundred million corpus of American English from 1810–2009), and Proceedings of the Old Bailey 1674–1913 (OBP). Of the latter, entries for the period 1674–1843 are the most valuable for linguistic work as they are the least affected by legal conventions (Huber 2007); they approximate fifty-two million words. Contemporary examples are drawn mainly from The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA, a four hundred and fifty million word corpus of American English from 1990–2012). Earlier data is derived mainly from older corpora such as The Helsinki Corpus (HC, approximately one million five hundred thousand words from 750–1710), and Early English Books Online (LION: EEBO, nearly nine hundred million words in 2008), and The Dictionary of Old English Corpus (DOEC). Although digital corpora are designed to be representative of certain varieties of a language, and provide rich and deep resources, nevertheless they are selective. As pointed out in Rissanen (2012: 213), even the best corpora therefore ‘represent only a slice of linguistic reality’.

The Framework

43

Other data bases that have been drawn on but are not representative corpora include Google, Google Books, and two major historical dictionaries of English, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and The Middle English Dictionary (MED). Although widely used as a starting point for research, the OED does not provide enough context for detailed research on micro-changes and their contexts (see e.g. Hoffmann 2004 and Allan 2012 on problems associated with using the OED as a corpus including use as a resource for dating changes; Mair 2004 also discusses the problems, but concludes that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages if clauselevel grammatical phenomena such as use of BE going to, begin/start to V/V-ing are under discussion). Google provides inadequate documentation (of contributors, textual sources, etc.), and the authenticity of the examples is often in question. However, on the positive side, it is an excellent source for neologisms, it gives evidence for a wider spectrum of language varieties than traditional corpora, and is a multilingual communicative domain and therefore can be an outstanding resource for study of ongoing change (Mair 2012). Wherever possible dates are provided with examples. However, especially in the earlier periods, dating is often approximate at best. When we refer to periods, the dating is somewhat arbitrary. Periodization of English is debated as it is based on a variety of factors, linguistic, political (e.g. the Norman Conquest), and technological (e.g. printing). Here we use the following traditional approximate dates: Old English 650–1100; Middle English 1100–1500; Modern English 1500–1970, divided into Early Modern English (1500–1700) and Late Modern English (1700–1970); Present Day English 1970–present.

1.8 Summary and outline of the book This chapter has presented an introduction to a large number of topics that will be discussed more fully in later chapters. In a nutshell, evolving approaches over the last hundred years to the observation that variation is the source and outcome of change have brought us back to the sign, but very differently construed from Saussure’s sign. Finding variation too idiosyncratic and rejecting then current failures to distinguish between change and variation, Saussure privileged langue over parole and sought system in the synchronic sign, understood as a form-meaning pairing at the level of the morpheme or word. In the mid-twentieth century Chomsky (1957 on) focused on language as a cognitive system, and privileged competence over performance, I-language over E-language. He sought system in UG and in syntax. In the seventies Labov demonstrated that systematicity could be found in variation, especially phonological variation, and variation over time (see Weinreich, Labov, and Herzog 1968). By the early eighties Lehmann (1995) was demonstrating systematicity in grammaticalization, understood as morphosyntactic change (see also Bybee 1985). The present interest in construction grammar, at least of the kind represented by the

44

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

work of Goldberg, Croft, and Langacker, privileges use and cognitive abilities; language is seen as a system of signs, understood as form-meaning pairings from morpheme to complex clause. The usage-based approach to construction grammar sees language as both structured and variable. As Bybee (2010: 1) says, language is ‘a phenomenon that exhibits apparent structure and regularity of patterning while at the same time showing considerable variation at all levels’. This is a position we assume throughout. Our focus on constructionalization seeks to pinpoint the crucial factors that lead up to and follow the development of formnew-meaningnew pairings, that is, of new constructions. In this chapter we have outlined some of the key features of a constructional approach to language and of our approach to sign change within a constructional framework. The main ideas that we will return to throughout this book are: (a) Constructions are linked in a network, with more schematic constructions sanctioning those lower in the taxonomy. The more schematic the constructional type, the greater the generalizations that can be made. Conversely, idiosyncrasies are more typical at lower levels in the taxonomy. (b) Changes are not autonomous but are related to constructions in different ways. Changes in meaning or form alone that affect individual constructions are constructional changes. (c) Changes that result in formnew-meaningnew pairings after a series of small-step constructional changes are constructionalizations. They are gradual, and the main focus of this book. (There are some cases of instantaneous lexical microconstructionalizations, discussed in chapter 4.8). (d) Constructions are on a gradient from lexical/contentful to grammatical/ procedural. Chapter 2 lays out some fundamental principles of the usage-based model of grammar that we will be using. In particular we take up point (a) above and suggest ways in which a network approach to language can inform understanding of change. In chapter 3 we provide a detailed account of grammatical constructionalization and ways in which it incorporates and goes beyond earlier work on grammaticalization. In chapter 4 constructional changes that are primarily lexical are discussed, including the development of word-formation patterns. We also give an account of how a constructional view of lexical change can incorporate and go beyond prior work on lexicalization. One of the major factors in change, and especially in understanding of constructionalization, is context. How to think about context in constructional terms is the topic of chapter 5. Chapter 6 serves as a summary of key points and suggests future directions for research.

2 A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change 2.1 Introduction In this chapter we elaborate on the usage-based model and on the idea that language is a network of relations among constructions. In particular, we explore the importance of networks in accounting for the fact that changes are interconnected, and seek to show how a network grows and contracts, assuming a usage-based model of change. Since our focus is on change, we will not be able to address except indirectly several important questions that have to do with the theory of networks in general. A cogent set of questions was posed in Rice (1996) with respect to some earlier work using semantic networks, especially Lakoff ’s (1987) idea of radial categories. Some of Rice’s questions remain pertinent today since form and meaning may be mismatched and have links in many different directions. Among the questions raised (Rice 1996: 142–145) are: (a) Given that a network contributes a multidimensional territory or field, how far does the territory extend? (b) Can elements move closer and farther apart? (c) How do new nodes and links develop? Rice (2003) later sought to answer (c) with respect to language acquisition, as did Goldberg in her 2006 book. In this chapter we attempt to address all three questions, but especially (c), with respect to change of form as well as meaning. We return specifically to Rice’s questions, and provide a summary of our answers to them, in section 2.8. Many of the issues are common topics in psycholinguistic research and in work in cognitive psychology. While we recognize the importance of links between synchronic analyses of language and psycholinguistics (Tomasello 2003; Bencini 2013), neurolinguistics (Pulvermüller, Cappelle, and Shtyrov 2013) and cognitive psychology (see discussion in Sinha 2007), we question to what extent they can be more than suggestive of change understood as conventionalization of innovations in times past. Therefore we mention only a small subset of relevant psycholinguistic literature, and only in passing.

46

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

By way of preview of this chapter, we use networks as a way of talking about individual knowledge (i.e. the representation of an idiolect, the reflection of an individual mind), community knowledge (i.e. the representation of the structure of English at a given point in time), and language change (i.e. how the structure of English varies over time), while recognizing that these different facets of network structure are not applicable in each case. Crucially, for our perspective, innovations are features of individual knowledge, and as such are manifest in the networks of individuals, while changes must be shared across individual networks in a population. We return to this issue at various points in the following subsections. Changes in a ‘community’ network develop through cross-population sharing of tiny innovative steps that occur in individual instances of speaker-hearer interaction, largely via a processes of neoanalysis, including analogization (see Raumolin-Brunberg and Nurmi 2011 for a summary of work on the role of the individual in language change). The kinds of incremental developments we describe for the rise of constructions is comparable in many ways to the discussion of sound change proposed by Labov (2007) and to the domain-general processes that Bybee (2010: 221) proposes ‘operate through repetition on a massive scale, within individuals and certainly within communities’. As discussed in chapter 1, innovations may be one-offs or idiosyncrasies of a particular speaker or hearer, which are manifest in individual networks. These are not ‘changes’ at a population level. However, if modifications to meaning or form are replicated in attested data we may conclude that the innovations in question have been adopted by other speakers in a social network and have ‘played out’ across usage in that social network, in other words that the innovations in individual minds have led to conventionalized ‘changes’ in more than one individual mental network. As we will show, such constructional changes involve new links among features of a network node, but no new node in the network (see further section 2.3.1). We begin with a discussion of the usage-based framework of construction grammar adopted in this book (2.2). In section 2.3 we elaborate on the concept of networks in a usage-based model. Types of links in the network are the topic of 2.4. Throughout the chapter we suggest ways in which each topic can inform historical work, but 2.5 zeroes in on some of the ways in which networks may grow, be reorganized, and contract. In 2.6 we discuss gradualness and gradience briefly, and in 2.7 we revisit the development of the way-construction to exemplify the issues in relative detail. 2.8 provides a summary and raises some questions that arise out of thinking about change from the perspective of usage and networks.

2.2 Usage-based models A powerful usage-base model of language was developed at the beginning of the twentieth century by Paul (see especially 1920), but was overshadowed in the second

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

47

half of the century by the focus of generative grammar on abstract competence. A variety of factors has led to renewed but in many cases significantly different interest in usage, depending on the researcher’s domain of work. These domains include cognitive linguistics (e.g. Bybee 1985, 2010; Langacker 1987, 2008), discourse and communication (e.g. Hopper 1987; Givón 1979, 1995), processing (e.g. Hawkins 2004), acquisition (e.g. Tomasello 2003), and change (e.g. Bybee 2010, De Smet 2012).1 The advent toward the end of the twentieth century of high quality recording technologies, digital resources, and data mining techniques has aided in the compilation and analysis of resources. The general assumption is that language use is a complex and dynamic activity. Bybee argues that use and knowledge together are key to understanding language both synchronically and diachronically. In particular, she argues that what speakers do affects mental representations: ‘[c]entral to the usage-based position is the hypothesis that instances of use impact the cognitive representation of language’ (Bybee 2010: 14). This position reaffirms her earlier proposal that grammar should be thought of as ‘the cognitive organization of language experience’ (Bybee 2006: 730). Taylor defines the usage-based approach to language structure as one in which ‘linguistic knowledge is acquired “bottom-up”, on the basis of encounters with the language, from which schematic representations are abstracted’ (Taylor 2002: 592). Representations are abstractions and types, not identical with, but based on, input and token constructs. We take the position that in order to understand change, it is necessary to recognize both knowledge and use; knowledge is not fixed and immutable, but nevertheless the ground out of which innovation emerges. Speakers use existing resources to create novel expressions (see also Boas 2008). In a usage-based model small-step micro-changes are identified and new structures are said to ‘emerge’. Since the term is widely debated (see Auer and Pfänder 2011a, 2011b for recent discussion), we pause here to comment on use of this term and to clarify what we mean by it. Hopper (2011) usefully distinguishes the coming into existence, ‘emerging’, ‘epigenesis’, or ‘development of a form out of it surroundings’ (p. 27) from what he has called ‘emergence’ (see Hopper 1987, 2008 and elsewhere). The concept of emerging phenomena presupposes some structure or norm out of which new uses arise. In Hopper’s concept of ‘emergent’ phenomena, however, ‘a grammatical structure is always temporary and ephemeral’ (Hopper 2011: 26). In his view, ‘emergent grammar’ is provisional, epiphenomenal to conversation and ‘consists not of sentences generated by rules, but of linear on-line assembly of familiar fragments . . . categories don’t exist in advance of the communicative setting’ (p. 28). By contrast, in the same volume, Auer and Pfänder (2011a: 18) argue that to account for change in a usage-based model it is necessary to think of both ‘categorized 1 An overview of the implications of a usage-based approach for these domains of research is provided in Diessel’s (2011) review of Bybee (2010). Diessel outlines ‘ten theses on the usage-based approach’.

48

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

linguistic knowledge’ and use leading to innovation because otherwise improvisation would be impossible: ‘[f]or improvisation to work, speakers and hearers must have a shared stock of expectations of what is to come in the syntactic project’ (p. 15). Given our view that both (flexible) knowledge and use must be accounted for, when we use the terms ‘emerge’ and ‘emerging‘ we intend coming into being on the basis of use of extant structures and norms, not ‘emergence’ in Hopper’s sense. In the next subsections we briefly mention two important issues for usage-based models: a) storage and entrenchment as a unit and b) the extent to which a schema, once formed, sanctions new constructs and constructions. 2.2.1 Storage as a unit Croft and Cruse (2004: 292) observe that the usage-based model rests on the principle that ‘properties of the use of utterances in communication also determine the representation of grammatical units in a speaker’s mind’. Since constructions are entrenched, stored units, how storage comes about is important for understanding constructionalization. Language is acquired through exposure to actual usage events. Generalizations and commonalities are established over specific examples of language in use. At the same time, how frequently a word is encountered by a speaker determines the extent to which it is entrenched (or stored as a unit) even though it may be decomposable into individual parts. It was an assumption of much work in linguistics in the second half of the twentieth century that if there is a generalization (‘rule’) then individual subtypes (‘lists’) should not be included in the linguist’s grammar of a language. Langacker (1987: 29) rejected this approach, assuming that such a grammar should represent language-user’s knowledge of language. Calling the approach the ‘rule/list fallacy’, he pointed out that mastery of a noun pluralization rule like N + s should not be mutually exclusive with mastery of a particular plural noun like beads or eyes; they are both facets of a speaker’s knowledge. Frequent encounters with and use of the plural form may mean that it is entrenched as a unit, an atomic rather than complex construction. One of the best-known examples of storage of complex morphological constructions as units comes from the behaviour of frequently occurring irregular morphological forms such as were, had and knew (Bybee and Slobin 1982, Bybee 2010). These forms have been shown to be resistant to change, especially regularization. By contrast, less frequently occurring irregular morphological forms are subject to regularization, in that they become neoanalyzed and realigned as members of the more productive [[Vi]ed] $ [SEMi+past]] schema. This may even occur within a set of verbs which have phonologically similar stem-endings: for instance, the past tense of frequently occurring verbs like bend and send continues to be irregular (bent and sent, respectively), while the past tense of the lower frequency blend has regularized from blent to blended. Evidence for the importance of token frequency in determining unit status has been provided by, for example, Losiewicz (1992) who showed that the duration of [d]

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

49

when functioning as a past tense allomorph is longer than the duration of monomorphemic final [d] (as in the difference between the final consonant of complex frayed compared to the final consonant of atomic afraid); see also Walsh and Parker (1983) on a similar pattern for [s] in laps vs. lapse. This comparison was then extended to two subsets of verbs which take the regular past tense inflection; one set which was of higher frequency (e.g. played, needed) and another of lower frequency (e.g. frayed, kneaded). In this case, [d] in the former set of words was shorter than the latter. Taken together, these two experiments provide evidence that high frequency polymorphemic words pattern like monomorphemes, and may therefore be stored in a similar way. Historically, it appears that storage of t/d/ed tense markers has for the most part been stable in English, hence the continued compositionality for many speakers of played as well as frayed, but in a few cases, notably of modals, which are used with higher frequency than main verbs, past tenses have become non-compositional at least in some uses. For example, might meaning ‘low probability’ is frozen as a unit and remains unchanged in reported speech, as in (1). However, when used as the reported speech form of may, might is a compositional past tense form, as in (2): (1) I might go later. She said she might go later. (2) I may go later. She said she might go later. On the other hand, must and ought (to) are completely fixed past tense forms (originally OE most-, past tense of mot- ‘be able to’, and aht-, past tense of ag‘have, owe’), which suggests that might meaning ‘low probability’, must and ought became stored as atomic micro-constructions. 2.2.2 Sanction In the synchronic usage-based literature an expression is said to be more or less ‘sanctioned’ by a more general type or schema (Langacker 1987). Neoanalysis and realignment to a more productive extant schema such as was mentioned above for blended, will be referred to as ‘becoming sanctioned’ by a different schema. For example, according to the textual record, prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century, although sporadic examples of a lot of are found in contexts that suggest it might have been intended or understood as a quantifier as well as a partitive (see 1.5.1), it was probably not conventionalized as a quantifier until the late eighteenth century, when examples in this use begin to proliferate. When it came to be used as a quantifier it came to be sanctioned by the extant quantifier schema. This already had a binominal member, a deal of, as well as quantifiers like much, many, few, a little. The schema grew as a result of sanctioning the new micro-constructions a lot of, lots of, and appears to have ‘motivated’ or provided the template for, several other new uses of partitives and measure expressions as quantifiers (Brems 2011).

50

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

In the Cognitive Grammar literature (e.g. Langacker 1987, 1991) an important distinction is made between full and partial sanction (roughly equivalent to instantiation and extension). These are considered to be two different kinds of categorization. Full sanction/instantiation occurs when a construct is fully consistent with the micro-construction of which it is an instance; partial sanction/extension occurs ‘when the target of categorization is only partly compatible with the sanctioning schema’ (Broccias 2013: 195). We will suggest later in this chapter and throughout the book that, in the life cycle of a construction, an enabling factor for constructionalization of a micro-construction is when the partial sanction results from mismatch. A new micro-construction node in the network may then be created that eventually allows such constructs to be fully sanctioned. Partial sanction may also occur when a schema or some of its members obsolesce and appear to have become so marginal to an existing micro-construction that they become highly idiosyncratic.

2.3 Networks in a usage-based model The network metaphor has been developed in work conducted on a number of cognitive linguistic theories including the Berkeley Framenet Project (Fillmore and Baker 2001, 2010). Networks play a significant role in models of grammar developed by Goldberg (e.g. 1995, 2006), Croft (e.g. 2001), and Langacker (e.g. 2008), and most especially in Hudson’s (non-constructional) Word Grammar (e.g. 2007a, b), and Lamb’s stratificational grammar (1998). The idea that language is a network fits well with claims from cognitive linguistics that other aspects of cognition such as vision and musical abilities are also structured as a network (e.g. Bharucha 1987, Rebuschat, Rohrmeier, Hawkins, and Cross 2012). It is consistent with Bybee’s (2010) view that language patterning is part of our domain-general capacity to categorize, establish relations, and to operate on both local and global levels. It is also consistent with Goldberg’s statement that ‘knowledge of language is knowledge’ (Goldberg 1995: 5), in other words, knowledge of language is part of a larger knowledge-system that includes vision, music, and other cognitive capacities. The network model is a central one in cognitive linguistics because of the key claim that the organization of language is not intrinsically different from the organization of other aspects of cognition. Hudson (1984: 1) proposed a Network Postulate: ‘Language is a conceptual network’. Langacker (2008) has described the architecture of his model of cognitive grammar as a constructional network: [W]e can describe a language as a structured inventory of conventional linguistic units. This structure—the organization of units into networks and assemblies—is intimately related to language use, both shaping it and being shaped by it. (Langacker 2008: 222, emphasis original)

Langacker represents cognitive networks as in Figure 2.1.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

51

A

Figure 2.1 Langacker’s (2008: 226) representation of a constructional network

This kind of two-dimensional representation does, however, not do full justice to a network which is multi-dimensional (being conceptualized in terms of neuronal networks). Some nodes in the network represent schemas, others subschemas, and others micro-constructional types. For example, while there are links in the network between partitive and quantifier schemas, there are also subnetworks associated with these schemas (large vs. small quantifiers) and links between micro-constructions that are members of the subschemas. Also not represented in Figure 2.1 is the fact that because each node represents a construction of some level of abstractness, it generalizes over the features of a construction. Therefore a node has form and meaning content (albeit of varying degrees of complexity and specificity—some may be underspecified) and links are possible in multiple different directions between the semantics, pragmatics, discourse function, syntax, morphology, and phonology of any node. Each node is linked in various ways to other nodes in the network, to be discussed below in 2.4. 2.3.1 The relationship between networks, language processing, and language learning We adopt a view of the relationship between the structure of the network, language processing and language learning broadly consistent with that of Langacker and Goldberg but adapted for thinking about change. As indicated in the previous chapter, changes start with tokens or constructs. In 1.4.2.1 we defined constructs as: empirically attested tokens (e.g. attested I gave Sarah a book, She needed a lot of energy), instances of use on a particular occasion, uttered by a particular speaker (or written by a particular writer) with a particular communicative purpose.

We hypothesize that in processing a construct, the hearer attempts to match the input with nodes in his or her network. Sometimes a full match may be made between what the speaker intends and the hearer understands (see section 2.2.2 above on full sanction), but sometimes this is not the case. The hearer may link all or some part of the utterance with nodes different from those intended by the speaker. This may happen in cases of

52

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

ambiguity already sanctioned by the language system. For example, the PDE constructed sentence (3) is semantically and syntactically ambiguous. Speaker A may mean (3a), while speaker B may interpret (3b) or even (3c). This does not involve innovation since all three interpretations have been available for many centuries, i.e. there are a number of schemas available, each of which will fully sanction the construct: (3)

I saw a man on the hill with a telescope. a. Using a telescope I saw a man on the hill. b. I saw a man on the hill and he was using a telescope. c. I saw a man on the hill that had a telescope on it.

In some cases no direct link may in fact be available, and then the hearer will attempt to make the best fit with an extant node or feature of a node, resulting in partial sanction. This is an innovation by the hearer. Innovative constructs are symbolic in that they involve a pairing of form and meaning but they lack conventionality (i.e. they are not shared by members of a social network) and—even more critically for present purposes—they are not units, because they are not (yet) substantially entrenched. They do not become instances of change until they are repeatedly used and become conventional signs. Initially persistence is in the memory of the individual, but in instances of change, the shift from construct to construction is the product not just of memory but of repeated use as increasing numbers of individuals use the same kind of innovation over time. As discussed in 2.5.1 below, at the initial stage, they may be on the ‘fringe’ of the network by virtue of their new and potentially non-prototypical status, and indeed may remain on the fringe. But over time, it is possible for marginal members of a category to become more central, and vice versa. By way of illustration, we can imagine that a speaker might have intended by an utterance like (4) to refer to a collection of stones lying on top of one another (implicating a large amount), but the hearer may have interpreted it as being about a large quantity rather than a mound, in other words may have made a link to the meaning associated with the quantifier construction: (4)

He led hym to a hep of stonys. he led him to a heap of stones (1349 Richard Rolle of Hampole [Brems 2011: 208; IMEPCS])

For a hearer who interpreted (4) as referring to a large quantity, such an interpretation was an innovation at the level of the construct or token, specifically a neoanalysis at the meaning level resulting in mismatch between pragmatics and syntax. Repeated assignments of the same or similar value to similar constructs by others eventually led to the development of a conventionalized quantity reading and constructionalization (semantic and morphosyntactic neoanalyses, resulting in coexisting micro-construction types, one measure, the other quantifier). What was initially

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

53

a tenuous link between part of a construct (its pragmatics) and a corresponding part of a type in the existing constructional network was, no doubt unconsciously, reconfigured over time by semantic and later syntactic head shift into a new conventionalized node/micro-construction. In the case of a hep of, we can imagine that the interpretation was sanctioned in part not only by the semantics of the quantifier schema but also by the development of quantifier meanings at approximately the same period (late ME) of several partitive constructions including a deal of, a bit of, and a lot of. At this stage N1 in each case was the syntactic head, but what seems to be a semantic quantifier reading is occasionally attested, in which case the semantic head is N2. This mismatch between form and meaning was resolved later. A heap/lot/bit of were all constructionalized as quantifiers in the late eighteenth century (see chapter 1.5.1 for discussion of a lot of and Brems 2012 on a heap of, a lot of, lots of ). We do not mean to imply that in the scenario outlined above that the processes of interpretation were identical in the case of each hearer. As Booij (2010: 93) points out, it is an empirical question whether all language-users use the same modes of abstraction in arriving at new structures. Since we are concerned with change, we abstract over individual acts (innovations) to account for conventionalization and sharing of new features. While individual minds are hypothesized to operate in similar ways, the view of usage-based change adopted here assumes that in their roles as speakers and hearers language users are not mirror images of each other (contra e.g. Saussure 1959[1916] and Langacker 2007). In any usage event the speakerhearer dyad is asymmetric. Therefore speakers and hearers do not necessarily process language in similar ways, though they may (see Queller 2003). The conventionalization of a type reflects ‘a state of coordination between members of a community that goes beyond several instances of linguistic interaction’ (Boye and Harder 2012: 8). However, why speakers replicate, adopt, and conventionalize new constructs and links between constructs is a matter of debate.2 Usage-based models of language learning unavoidably suggest a language network that is rather baroque, involving massive redundancy and vastly rich detail, particularly at the construct or token level. However, in among the messy details of language use are regular generalizations that language users employ (unconsciously) to structure the network. In other words, there are some cognitive ‘benefits’ in both computing abstractions and in learning instances. Speakers and hearers use schemas that bring together those more specific form-meaning pairings which the language user perceives as being instantiations of a more general type. These schemas are useful to language users because they enable the speaker/hearer to store information about a set of constructs and constructions on one type node.

2

See Blythe and Croft (2012) for a summary of some of this debate.

54

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

2.3.2 Spreading activation The network approach, as opposed to a modular, rule-based account, allows for the (near-)simultaneous activation of closely related nodes in particular usage events, a mechanism known as ‘spreading activation’ (Hudson 2010: 95). This phenomenon is a feature of individual knowledge, and therefore may feature in the development of innovations. However, spreading activation cannot be said to be a property of a ‘community-network’, or of networks in two different points in time (cf. section 2.1 above). It is a kind of linking process that has been tested in psycholinguistic experiments (e.g. Harley 2008) involving dysfluencies such as slips of the tongue or deliberate versions of them (spoonerisms as in (5a)) and malapropisms (5b). These involve lateral, syntagmatic spreading activation: (5)

a. The Kinquering Congs their Titles Take. (hymn title attributed to Reverend William Spooner) b. Comparisons are odorous. (1600 Shakespeare, Much Ado about Nothing III.v.18)

These kinds of activation are innovations, but neither spoonerisms nor malapropisms appear to lead to any natural kind of change. However, the effects of asymmetric priming, (e.g. from space to time, but not vice versa, Boroditsky 2000), have been hypothesized to be plausible linguistic replicating mechanisms leading to directionality in change, especially grammaticalization (Jäger and Rosenbach 2008). Priming, the influence of an earlier meaning or form on an upcoming one, involves (pre)activation of meaning, morphosyntax, or phonology. Goldberg (2006: 124) discusses evidence from experiments for the priming of passives such as (6a) by intransitive locatives with morphology shared by the passive. For example, (6b) primes (6a), but (6c) does not since it does not contain was (see also Snider 2008 on priming effects in syntax): (6)

a. The construction worker was hit by the bulldozer. b. The construction worker was digging by the bulldozer. c. The construction worker might dig near the bulldozer.

Evidence for priming effects can be found in the speed at which a subject in a psycholinguistic experiment can retrieve a particular linguistic form in relation to other forms which precede (or prime) it (Ratcliff and McKoon 1981). In terms of lexical items, for instance, we can set up an experiment to establish whether a word like apple is primed by pear (or by fish, or honesty and so on) by seeing how quickly the test word is retrieved by the experimental subject when it follows the potential priming words. The hypothesis is that constructions which are closely related to each other—in our model, constructions which are closely linked in the network—prime each other more rapidly than words which are further apart in the network. The more frequently a node or relation is activated, the more readily it may become

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

55

activated in the future (Hudson 2007a: 53; see also Langacker 1987, 2008, Schmid 2007, and Blumenthal-Dramé 2012 on entrenchment). Spreading activation is central for the process of learning. If, as suggested by the usage-based model of sign change, speakers are constantly ‘learning’ and reconfiguring their language, then sign change must similarly involve the processing of a mass of examples, and the abduction (Andersen 1973) of more general patterns across those examples. At the same time, however, language users not only learn, but may also ‘forget’. We may hypothesize that a lack of activation may lead to a lack of entrenchment—the less frequently a node or relation is activated, the less readily it becomes activated at a later time. If a particular node in the language network fails to fire, this node becomes increasingly obsolete, and no longer functions to sanction more specific instances. This accounts for obsolescence and eventual non-use of a construction (see 2.5.1.3). Spreading activation and priming are linked because priming provides a motivation for which nodes in a network should be ‘activated’ in particular usage events, and which nodes should remain inactive (see further Collins and Loftus 1975). Hudson suggests that the goal of processing is: to find the best ‘path’ from the (known) form to the (unknown) meaning by selectively activating intervening nodes which receive activation in both directions and damping down the activation on all other nodes. (Hudson 2007a: 40)

Guidance to what that best path to the unknown meaning may be can come both from priming (i.e. other words or constructions used by language users in the discourse) and from implicatures and inferences made and accepted by participants in that discourse. In other words, there are both cotextual and contextual factors that help to shape the interpretation of given utterances, some of which relate to psycholinguistic issues of processing, and some of which relate more immediately to discourse analytic strategies of interpreting meaning in context. Crucially, these issues rely on speakers establishing links between form and meaning, and therefore both formal and meaningful aspects of the surrounding discourse are likely to play a role. An example is provided by the development of a deal of from a partitive to a quantifier. OE dæl meant ‘part’ (see German Teil ‘part’). Early uses with a nominal modifier are clearly partitive: (7)

Ic gife þa twa dæl of Witlesmere. I bequeath those two parts of Witlesmere (a1121 Peterb.Chron. (LdMisc 636) [MED del n2, 1a])

A part implies a quantity, and dæl appears to have been the first binominal partitive in English to be used with a clearly quantified meaning. This use is mostly restricted to expressions modified by a quantifying adjective such as great and good ‘large’:

56

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(8) Safroun & a gode dele Salt. saffron and a large amount salt (c1430 Two Cookery Books 15 [OED deal n1, 3]) Various ways are available for describing how users of the quantifier semantics of deal illustrated in (8) might have come to make this innovation. One is to suggest that there was a metonymic shift from the adjective to the noun deal. Another is that the adjective reinforced the implicature of quantity from ‘part’ and eventually some speakers came to associate quantity with deal. This could be said to be an example of ‘context-absorption’ (Kuteva 2001: 151), the phenomenon of transfer of an invited inference to a micro-construction allowing for later uses like (9) where there is no adjective from which to derive quantification: (9)

Jesu Maria what a deal of brine Hath washed thy sallow cheeks for Rosaline! (1595–6 Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet II.iii.69)

Yet another way of thinking about the development would be to refer to spreading activation, assuming that the modifier great or good in (8) activated or primed quantifier meaning, which spread to the noun. The value of spreading activation for an account of change is that it sheds a processual light on issues of gradience and gradualness (see 2.6 below) and the observation that ‘representations can be simultaneously discrete and connected’ (De Smet 2010: 96). Synchronically the various features of constructs are activated, be they pragmatic, semantic, morphosyntactic or phonological, and links with features of other constructs are enabled. This ties in with the non-discreteness of categories, the fuzziness of boundaries between them, and hence with gradience (Denison 2006, Aarts 2007, Traugott and Trousdale 2010a). Over time the links with other features may be strengthened leading to gradual step-by-step micro-changes. 2.3.3 Implications for ‘analogy’ In sum, linguistic innovations are interpretations of constructs that are ‘transient’ items of experience for both speakers and hearers, and are limited to a ‘fringe on the edge of the permanent network’ (Hudson 2007a: 42). A speaker produces an utterance which is equivocal, i.e. which can be parsed in more than one way. On-line processes such as invited inferencing—itself interpretable as a kind of spreading activation—arising from a speaker’s particular use of a construct, may enable the hearer to analyze the utterance in a particular way, one which is novel to the hearer, and one for which there is no extant construction that can sanction the construct. The hearer then creates a provisional token node for the construct, and that node may contain a great deal of information about the context of the utterance, the relationship between speaker and hearer, and the fact that the utterance in question is

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

57

a sign, i.e. a pairing of form and meaning. While this token sign may have phonological and phonetic detail, the morphological and syntactic detail may be less specific or even absent. Similarly, the discourse and pragmatic detail of the sign may be rich, but the hearer may not be able to access any associated conventional semantics. The situation needs to be resolved for the utterance to be processed fully, and so the hearer applies the best fit principle in order to find an extant construction which provides the closest alignment of the discourse and pragmatic properties of the observed construct and the stored constructional type or (sub)schema. When the hearer attempts to match a construct with an existing part of the constructional network and fails to do so because there is no existing micro-construction that fully sanctions the construct, there is mismatch. The best the hearer can do is create a link to align the meaning or the form of the construct with the meaning or form of other extant (sub)schemas in the network. This is done based on the discourse/pragmatic properties associated with both the (new) construct and the (existing) constructional subschema. They involve mismatch between the intended and understood meaning. Innovative constructs are symbolic in that they involve a pairing of form and meaning but they lack conventionality because they are not shared by members of a population. However, in some cases links appear to be so natural and are repeated so frequently that they may come to the level of awareness or even be rhetorically manipulated. A well-known case is after. A temporal preposition and conjunction meaning ‘from the time that’, it is sometimes enriched to mean causality, in other words, in some contexts the hearer is invited to make a link to the causal schema through spreading activation. This is an example of the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc ‘after this therefore because of this’. Although the causal interpretation of after has been available from OE times, after has not been semanticized as a causal, i.e. it has not undergone constructional change—the creation of a new token node in no way determines that a change will follow. After shows that enriching implicatures, even if replicated and long-lived, enable change, but do not cause it. By contrast to after, ME sithenes, also meaning ‘from the time that, since’, has undergone change: it has both temporal and causal polysemies (Traugott and König 1991). The causal link has become substantially entrenched and a new unit, a causal polysemy, has developed. Combining understanding of the processes that enable change with the examples discussed suggests a way of further refining analogy. In chapter 1.6.4.2 we distinguished analogical thinking (an enabling factor or motivation) from analogization (a mechanism of change). We also mentioned that much discussion of analogy in usage-based models appeals to exemplars. Here we consider implications of the usage-based approach for these factors. The ability to construe meaning by linking to features across the network is in essence the ability to think analogically. Thinking analogically is a motivation that may lead us to the best fit for a given temporary construct. Most critically, as noted above, spreading activation is a mechanism associated with the best-fit principle (see Hudson 2010: 95). Thinking analogically

58

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

may lead us to the best fit for a given temporary construct, so spreading activation as a neural mechanism is likely to be linked to analogical thinking. Since it is also associated with parsing, it has a role to play in neoanalysis. In other words, spreading activation as a neural mechanism appears to be linked to both mechanisms of language change identified in Table 1.2 of chapter 1. Such links are typically highly transient. However, if they are adopted by a population of speakers, they may lead to changes. In the case of a deal of, the initial step of ‘context-absorption’ as in (8) of the measure semantics of the measure adjective into the noun deal involved analogical thinking—parts have measure. However, since there was no exemplar there was no analogization. During later ME, when we see evidence of this context-absorption, a number of other binominal and measure partitives such as a lot/heap/bit of N also begin to appear with what looks like potential quantifier use. Most of these are bare, without measure adjectives. Presumably analogical thinking—in this case, linking to best-fit semantics—was initially at work here as well. The coexistence of several binominal expressions referring to part-whole and allowing pragmatic inferencing to quantity may have enabled the conventionalized replication of uses in which the form continues to be head-modifier ([a N1 [of N2]]) but the semantics was mismatched with the modifier-head structure [Quant SEM], a constructional change. Here we can postulate analogizations among the binominals, allowing for the development of bare a deal of as in (9). Later in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most of the binominals with mismatched form and meaning underwent constructionalization to quantifiers, as exemplified in chapter 1.5.1 by a lot of. At this stage the binominals served as exemplars in the sense of form-meaning pairings for each other and for later developments, such as a shred/iota of (Brems 2011). The logical consequence of the hypothesis outlined here is that no construction is entirely new (except those that are borrowings and some coinings). There will always be a link at a minimum to a feature of some node. This raises a question whether analogy is primary as suggested by Fischer (2007) and De Smet (2009). As De Smet (2012: 629) implies, ‘primary’ has been understood in two ways: as a temporal notion (‘prior’) and as an evaluative notion (‘most important’). Analogical thinking that enables best fit matching is clearly temporally prior to most change, and primary in that sense. Analogization by contrast involves the reconfiguration of the features or ‘internal dimensions’ (Gisborne 2011: 156) of a construction. One example is the mismatch between the syntax and semantics of the binominals discussed above. Another is the subsequent constructionalization involving syntactic head shift. Analogization therefore necessarily entails micro-step changes, in other words neoanalysis. There is no issue of temporal succession here; analogization is neoanalysis. Since all analogization is neoanalysis, but there can be neoanalysis without analogization, as we will show in chapter 3 with discussion of the rise of pseudo-clefts, as a mechanism, neoanalysis is in our view primary in the sense of ‘more important’ because it covers more cases of change.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

59

2.4 Types of links In the discussion so far we have not distinguished types of link. Usage-based construction grammars and Word Grammar distinguish two types of link in the network. The one most often discussed in work by Goldberg and Croft is inheritance, a taxonomic link,3 the other is relational, specifying the kinds of relations among constructions (see Boas 2013 for a useful summary). We discuss the latter type first (2.4.1) as its connection to the preceding discussion is the most obvious, and then turn to inheritance links (2.4.2). Reconfigurations of links, whether between micro-constructions, subschemas, or schemas, are of particular relevance for constructionalization, as will be discussed in 2.5.2 below. 2.4.1 Relational links Relational links between constructions are of several kinds. Goldberg (1995) proposed four types: polysemy, metaphorical extension, subpart and instance links. Polysemy links describe the semantic links between the prototypical sense of a construction and its extensions. While the syntactic specifications are the same, the semantic ones are different. Goldberg gives the example of the ditransitive construction, which has the syntax [SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] and the central semantics [X CAUSE Y to RECEIVE Z]. A typical example is (10): (10)

Max gave Edward the robot.

But there are many related patterns in which the reception is constrained in some way and which can be regarded as polysemous extensions, e.g.: (11)

a. Max refused Edward the robot. [[SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] $ [X CAUSE Y not to RECEIVE Z]] b. Max made Edward a robot. [[SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] $ [X ENABLE Y to RECEIVE Z]]

Such polysemy links are usually discussed at the subschema level, not at the level of individual micro-constructions, for example refuse in (11a) is an example of a class of verbs of refusal including deny while make in (11b) is an example of a class of verbs of creation including bake. Anticipating later discussion in chapter 5.2.1, we mention here that we regard ‘polysemy’ to be a synchronic notion. For example, since as a temporal and as a causal are synchronically polysemous. But to highlight the fact that the change is

3 Note that the term ‘inheritance’ does not, in the context of construction grammar, imply anything about sources. It refers to strictly synchronic taxonomic relationships.

60

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

constructional and involves different links in the network, when a change occurs resulting in a new constructional meaning or in constructionalization, we prefer to follow Lichtenberk (1991) and use the term ‘heterosemy’ for the diachronic association between two meanings. Changes to ME sithenes over time led to heterosemy, with the temporal meaning being older than the causal. Metaphorical extension links are those which involve a particular metaphorical mapping. In accounting for the relationship between possible and impossible resultative constructions, Goldberg (1995: 81–9) argues that many of the constraints which are manifest can be explained by positing a metaphorical link. For instance there is a metaphorical link between motion and change (The chocolate went from liquid to solid), and another between location and state (She went mad), such that a change of state may be understood as a metaphorical extension of change of location. Such metaphorical links show resultatives to be metaphorical extensions of caused-motion constructions. The association between the two constructions may be exemplified by (12a) (literal, caused-motion) and (12b) (metaphorical, resultative): (12)

a. Lisa sent him home. b. Lisa sent him wild.

Subpart links indicate the relationship between a construction and a larger one that exists independently and of which it may form a part. The intransitive motion schema as exemplified by (13a) is a ‘proper subpart’ of the caused-motion schema as exemplified by (13b): (13)

a. The toddler walked to the door. b. She walked the toddler to the door.

Finally, instance links occur when a particular construction is a ‘special case’ (Goldberg 1995: 79) of another construction. For example, when the verb drive (with a particular sense) is used in a resultative construction, the result-goal argument can be drawn only from a limited set of constructions: while it is possible to drive someone crazy, nuts, or up the wall, it is ordinarily not possible to drive someone happy, delighted, or up the staircase, in the sense of affecting their emotions. In other words, X in drive someone X is often associated with negatively oriented semantics (crazy) or is idiomatic (up the wall). We will not be discussing this type of link except in as far as it pertains to degrees of sanction by a schema. At various times in their histories constructions may be more or less constrained. Whether or not a particular micro-construction is a special case may depend on whether it is on the margin of a constructional schema (see 2.5.1). How are these relational links associated with spreading activation? Relational links are central for particular kinds of priming. Relational links typically exist between reasonably closely related concepts (e.g. between intransitive motion and caused motion), and closely related concepts prime one another in a conceptual network (Hudson 2010: 76).

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

61

2.4.2 Inheritance links The inventory of constructions is structured and may be represented in terms of a ‘taxonomic network’ of constructions, where each construction is a ‘node’ in the network (Croft 2001: 25). Inheritance links are a central part of the constructional network in many versions of construction grammar, including those of Goldberg (1995, 2006), Fillmore (1999), Kay and Fillmore (1999), and also in Hudson’s (2007a, b) Word Grammar. Inheritance relations are taxonomic constraints and allow for categorizations at various levels of generality. Goldberg says that in her model of construction grammar: constructions form a network and are linked by inheritance relations which motivate many of the properties of particular constructions. The inheritance network lets us capture generalizations across constructions while at the same time allowing for subregularities and exceptions. (Goldberg 1995: 67).

Each node inherits the properties of its dominating nodes. Thus John runs is a construct of the English intransitive construction, which is a member of the English subject-predicate construction. Inheritance allows information to be represented only once, ‘at the highest (most schematic) level possible’ (Croft 2007b: 484). Goldberg suggests that inheritance links show that relations between constructions may be partially arbitrary but also partially predictable. In other words, they may be partially motivated and ‘influence each other even when they do not literally interact’ (Goldberg 1995: 72); in her model, inheritance links are asymmetrical: ‘construction A motivates construction B iff B inherits from A’ (italics original). This allows partial sanction in the sense of Langacker (1987): construction B inherits properties from construction A but has some additional features specific to that construction. Inheritance accounts for the fact that most verbs in English are formed with the past tense morpheme -ed, but some are not, in the following way. At the most abstract level, verbs may combine with past tense and ‘default inheritance’ spreads to individual micro-constructions. However, some, e.g. ride, run block the default inheritance with a specific exception. An important characteristic of inheritance in the constructional network is that expressions typically inherit from several constructions. This is called ‘multiple inheritance’ (Goldberg 2003). For example, (14) inherits from interrogative subjectauxiliary inversion, negative, passive, present perfect, and transitive constructions: (14)

Hasn’t the cat been fed yet?

Multiple inheritance occurs in the case of intermediate constructions, e.g. famously the gerund displays properties of both Ns and Vs (e.g. having in We were talking about Mary having a beautiful garden) (see Hudson 2007a: chapter 4 for discussion of gerunds and their multiple inheritance). When we take a historical perspective we may find that features of any or all of the constructions relevant in multiple inheritance may undergo change. In fact, in English, some of the formal

62

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

properties of interrogative subject-auxiliary inversion, negative, passive, perfect, and transitive constructions have undergone constructional change. An advantage of inheritance links is that they ‘capture the fact that all nonconflicting information between two related constructions is shared’ (Goldberg 1995: 74–75), and show ‘systematically related form and systematically related meaning’ (Goldberg 1995: 99). For example, members of the family of ditransitives inherit from the syntactic template [SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] combined with the semantic template [X CAUSE Y to RECEIVE Z]. However, there are some problems with some applications of inheritance, see Croft (2007b), Sag, Boas, and Kay (2012), and Sag (2012). One concerns those positions in which inheritance links are largely tied to form (e.g. Goldberg 1995). Formal inheritance links must be thought of together with other types of links if a full understanding of networks is to be achieved. For example, because there is a lack of shared form between the double-object ditransitive and its ‘paraphrase’: the prepositional double object construction (also known as the Transfer-caused-motion construction), e.g. Jane gave Kim a book and Jane gave a book to Kim), and because they have different distributional properties, Goldberg (1995: 100) says they ‘are not related by an inheritance link’. They are, however, related by meaning, and Goldberg (1995: 91) mentions a semantic synonymy-link. Perek (2012) uses experimental data to suggest that language-users are able to make generalizations over formally distinct constructions such as the ditransitive and its prepositional paraphrase. As we mention below in 2.5.2, there appears to be historical support for this finding as well.

2.5 Growth, obsolescence, and reconfiguration in a network We have argued that there may be constructional changes to individual microconstructions in a network. These do not create new type nodes shared by a population of language users. Such nodes arise only when constructionalization occurs. Network growth and the development of new families of construction types are phenomena that are characteristic of the kind of conceptual network that derives from usage events in which abstraction and extension of earlier constructions are typical. Families of construction types may be gathered into schemas, sometimes with subschemas. Sometimes, however, subschemas or some of their members become obsolescent. Links in the network may even be broken. Such changes are the topic of this section. In 2.5.1 we consider growth from the perspective of the life-cycle of constructions, with particular attention to entry into a schema at the margins, staying at the margins, and obsolescence. In section 2.5.2 we discuss reconfiguration of the network. 2.5.1 The life-cycle of constructions In 2.3.1 we mentioned that new constructions are often marginal members of a schema. Here we focus on implications for growth of the network.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

63

2.5.1.1 Growth at the margins Growth in the network has to date most often been associated with grammatical constructionalization (Gisborne 2011, Trousdale 2012a). In grammatical constructionalization a succession of small neoanalyses (‘preconstructionalization constructional changes’) may lead to the creation of a new micro-construction. One of the most cited examples is the development of modals in English. In OE there were several verbs with modal meanings (ability, desire, etc.) and various combinations of formal properties that made them unlike other verbs (e.g. Lightfoot 1979, Plank 1984, Warner 1993). Warner includes (p. 135, 152):4 (a) subcategorization for the plain infinitive rather than the to-infinitive (compare wolde gan ‘wanted to go’ with He gedyrstlæhte to ganne upon ðære sæ ‘He thirsted to go upon the sea’), (b) preterite-present morphology, (c) use of past tense forms without past time reference, (d) lack of non-finite forms (e.g. mot- ‘be able’), (e) cliticization of negative (e.g. nolde ‘not wanted’), (f ) occurrence in ellipsis (e.g. Deofol us wile ofslean gif he mot ‘The devil will kill us if he can’, p. 112), (g) transparency to impersonal constructions (i.e. they lack an independent subject in impersonals) (e.g. Hit wolde dagian ‘It was about to dawn’ (literally ‘it wanted to dawn’) p. 126). Not all premodals shared all these properties, e.g. will- was not preterite-present, but scul- ‘shall’ and mot- ‘be able to’ were. While the premodals were initially main verbs, by OE they were on the margins of the verb category because of such characteristics. Because of their meanings, they were, however, relatively frequently used, sufficiently so that over time some, like will- and scul- came to be distinct from their precursors. By ME others began to be used in similar ways. The past tense forms must (base mot-) and ought (base ag- ‘own, have a debt, owe’) became fixed and separated from their present tenses (mot- was lost in standard English, and owe is no longer thought to be related to ought). This is a type of change known in the grammaticalization literature as ‘divergence’ (Hopper 1991). The past tense forms could, might, and should came to have specialized modal functions separate from can, may, and shall. With the rise of do-support these modals retained old syntactic patterns (e.g. inversion in questions, Can I take that one?) and became even more distinct from other verbs than they had been. Eventually the set we now know as ‘core modals’ became crystallized as a modal subschema of a growing auxiliary schema, partly owing to systemic word order changes.

4 Warner notes that the first three are also mentioned by Lightfoot, but says he finds them significantly more important than Lightfoot does.

64

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

We will show in chapter 4 that growth in the network is also associated with the rise of some word-formation patterns. Suffice it to say here that in OE the noun dom had a number of meanings, including ‘doom, judgment (as in Doomsday Book), decree, command, state, condition’. Being a noun it could be modified, pluralized, and so forth. It also appeared in several abstract noun compounds, many of them quite frequently used, e.g. freodom ‘freedom’ with an adjective base (the oldest type of compound), and martyrdom ‘martyrdom’ with a nominal base (Haselow 2011: 151–154). By the eleventh century, the end of the OE period, -dom began to be attested with bleached meanings, and appears on grounds of type expansion and phonological reduction to have been used as a derivational suffix. This illustrates gradual growth and constructionalization in the network of a lexical schema [[ADJ/N] + [dom] $ [‘entity denoting abstract state’]] (or in some cases, denoting place, cf. kingdom).5 Marchand (1969: 262–264) documents its continued use to the present day, in many cases with slightly humorous or deprecating pragmatics. 2.5.1.2 Staying at the margins Sometimes a schema may be robust, but certain members (micro-constructions) are infrequently used, perhaps restricted in terms of genre or group of speakers, and in that sense at the margins of the category throughout their life-cycle. Hoffmann (2005: 143) lists the complex prepositions attested one hundred or fewer times in the written part of the BNC. Of these, twenty-five occur only ten times or less, among them in presence of, without breach of, in distinction to, at cost of, by analogy to. Intuitively, a close look at text types might suggest that some of these could be found fairly frequently in certain genres (e.g. by analogy to in recent historical linguistics, at cost of in discussion of pricing). And, as Hoffmann shows, what is relatively frequent in written texts, e.g. in spite of, may not be in spoken (p. 106). Nevertheless, some complex prepositions are clearly far more ‘central’ with regard to frequency and distribution than others, e.g. on top of. Hoffmann says that in terms of, which first appeared in the nineteenth century but was not generalized until the twentieth, is the most frequent complex preposition in BNC (but even this complex expression is distributionally restricted, being very rare in imaginative prose and leisure texts). Hoffmann also shows that in front of, which competes with before (< be ‘by’ foran ‘from the front’ [OED]) in both spatial but especially temporal use, is not only rare in ME when it first arose, but continues to be less frequent than before in PDE as represented by the BNC (p. 150). Nevertheless, in front of has all the hallmarks of grammaticalization: fusion as a unit, function as a preposition, and loss of lexical meaning, but little phonological reduction. It appears that before has been specialized primarily to temporal relations, in front of primarily to spatial ones.

5

We provide a more elaborate representation of lexical schemas in chapter 4.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

65

These examples suggest that micro-constructions within a schema may be quite variable in terms of their frequency and collocational possibilities and therefore may be variable in terms of their prototypicality. Geeraerts’ (1997) discussion of the importance of a prototype approach to semantic change deserves to be expanded to constructional change and especially the notion of schemas and their subnetworks. 2.5.1.3 Marginalization and loss of a construction When a schema already exists, its members, and indeed the schema itself, is potentially subject to decline and loss, usually after a period of expansion. Givón’s cline (1979: 209) in which the final stage is zero, has been very influential in work on grammaticalization: (15)

discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > zero

The zero in this cline is meant to represent loss. It appears to cover both complete loss, such as the eventual loss of the infinitive marker -an in English, and also the development of meaningful zeros. The latter are elements in a paradigm, e.g. present habitual is typically not uniquely marked, compare They talk every day (present habitual; zero marking) with They used to talk every day (past habitual, periphrastic marking). Meaningful zeroes need not have a source in an overt micro-construction, but may arise out of ‘the discourse and cognitive context’ (Bybee 1994: 241; 2010: 177–181). However, Givón had in mind those that arise out of earlier morphemes, e.g. unmarked (zero) plural as in They think so. The zero plural results from the loss in ME of OE -en plural inflections. Givón says of (15) that it characterizes ‘cyclic waves’, that is, there will be ‘renewal’ (Meillet 1958[1915–16]). While, as Meillet pointed out, some categories are often subject to loss and renewal, e.g. conjunctions and negation, others are remarkably resistant to it: new members of the category may appear and coexist for a long time (Hopper’s 1991 ‘principle of layering‘). Given (15) it is tempting to think of the rise of a new micro-construction in a situation of renewal as ‘compensating for’ the loss of the other. An extreme version of this concept is the idea that the new grammatical category arises after the earlier one has gone to zero (is lost), e.g. that prepositions in English were used to signal case after inflectional case was lost. Here ‘cycle’ is construed as ‘circle’. Meillet (1958[1912]: 142), for example, speaks of a form disappearing and leaving ‘une vide‘, ‘a void’ or gap that is then filled. His example is the loss of the preterite, as in cecini ‘I sang’ and the rise of the periphrastic habeo dictum ‘I have said (it)’ (later French j’ai dit ‘I said’), ultimately derived from the passive, e.g. dictum est ‘it was said’. However, there is no evidence a void is created that needs to be filled. Nor does the idea make sense since speakers presumably would not be able to communicate well if there was no way to instantiate a category (unless another variant continued in existence). As Lehmann (1985) points out, renewal takes place simultaneously with loss; there is competition between the older and the new form so ‘cycle’ must be construed as a kind of parallel succession of changes, not as a circle

66

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(see similarly Haspelmath 2000). Lehmann suggests that loss of case in Latin and renewal by prepositions in Latin-Romance are ‘in mutual harmony’ with each other (1985: 312). An excellent example of the coexistence, with slightly different meanings, of an older and a newer grammatical micro-construction is provided by the much-cited first attested example of the Romance future that was derived from V + INF + habe-. In a seventh century account of Frankish history by Fredegarius Scholasticus the form daras ‘you will give’ with the -r- inflection < dare habes (‘to give you have’) occurs side by side with the older future dabo with the -b- inflection. It appears in a narrative about the alleged reason a city was named Daras. There is an exchange between the defeated Persian king (ille ‘he’ in the first line of (16)) and Emperor Justinian who has demanded certain territories: (16)

et ille and he Iustinianus Justinian

respondebat: responded: dicebat: said:

non dabo not give-1SgFUT daras give-2SgFUT (Fleischman 1982: 68)

Dabo and daras clearly coexisted, but they did not mean exactly the same thing. The older form can be translated ‘I will not give it’, while the newer one suggests that the sense of modal obligation associated with the habe- phrase persists: ‘You have to give it’. There is no evidence that the -b- future form was lost and then the -r- future replaced it. Rather, they competed and eventually speakers chose the -r- form over the older -b- form. Over time the obligation meaning of the -r- form was reduced through frequent use, and the older -b-, which had competed with it, was lost. Renewal is almost always constrained in some way and loss and renewal are not mirror images of each other. Details of how the Romance future replaced the Latin future are hidden in time. But ongoing examples of obsolescence in English are provided in Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith (2009) and give us a window on the kinds of things that can happen as a grammatical construction comes to be marginalized. Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith discuss the decline during the twentieth century of the core modals in Standard English such as will, would, can, could, may, might, shall, should, must, ought (to) and what they call need(n’t) (to distinguish it from the semimodal need to, which has many main verb properties). Among their general observations about the modals is that those core modals that were already less common at the end of the nineteenth century (may, must, shall, ought (to), needn’t) have declined significantly more rapidly than those that were not already declining. Differential rates of decline can be found in British and American varieties, and decline is more noticeable in speech than in writing. This means that while members of the schema (nodes in the network) may be in decline, they are not equally so: just as we witness individual micro-constructions coming to be added to a schema over time, so we may witness individual micro-constructions falling out of use, one by one.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

67

Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith (2009) pose the question whether the decline of core modals is correlated with the rise of semi-modals such as BE going to, BE able to, HAVE to, as might be expected given the general shift from synthetic toward more analytic syntax in English, discussed in e.g. Krug (2000). They show that in the written corpora, the increase in semi-modals is much smaller than is the loss of core modals. However, in the more limited evidence that they have from spoken corpora, semi-modals have a much higher frequency, and a subset: HAVE to, BE going to and WANT to, are beginning to rival core modals in frequency. All the same, at the end of the twentieth century, as evidenced by a variety of electronic corpora, core modals still outnumbered semi-modals 1.8 to 1 even in the variety that has undergone the greatest amount of change, spoken American English (p. 101). So, to the extent that there is a correlation between expansion of the semi-modals and loss of some older core modals, it is as yet weak, and evidenced primarily in spoken English. However, in one case a core modal, dare, appears to have been so rare that it has become a hybrid, with some features of core modals and some of quasi-modals with to, e.g. negative is favored without do-support, but interrogative with it (He dared not go, Did he dare to go?) (Schlüter 2010). Schlüter relates this hybridity to avoidance of stress clash: the infinitive is favored if dare would otherwise be followed by a stressed verb (e.g. non-stress-clashing dáres to spéak is preferred over stress clashing dáres spéak). A particularly interesting finding in Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith from a constructionalization perspective is that over the twentieth century there has been a tendency for the polysemy of some modals to be reduced, e.g. may (a relatively frequent modal), is becoming restricted to epistemic (‘it is possible that’) uses, and its permission uses are being taken over by can (p. 84–85). Should, also a relatively frequent modal, is being weakened to a marker of the non-factuality of the predication, i.e. of mood (p. 86); however, must, though on a steep decline, retains both its deontic (‘be obliged to’) and epistemic meanings (p. 89). The reduction of the more marginal auxiliaries is discussed in terms of ‘diminishing functionality’ and its symptoms (p. 80). One symptom of diminishing functionality is ‘paradigmatic atrophy’: shall is now almost completely restricted to first person subjects. If it occurs with third person subjects, this is almost always in the context of ‘stipulative’ speech acts, e.g. (p. 80): (17)

This agreement shall enter into force upon signature.

Another symptom of diminishing functionality is ‘distributional fragmentation’ (p. 81): increasing restriction to certain genres or even texts. Loss of polysemy links involves loss of semantic generality; loss of paradigmatic and distributional freedom involves loss of productivity. The obsolescence of the marginal core modals has not yet led to loss of schematicity of the core modal construction, since all members are still used. However, the individual trajectories of each micro-

68

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

construction suggest that alignment within the larger macro-envelope of core modals is becoming rather weak during obsolescence, and that many core modals are becoming restricted within the system. These are all constructional changes. The constraints on competition and loss discussed so far have been structural or genre-based (writing vs. speech). Constraints may also be regional. For example, OE oþ (þæt) ‘to, until’ was replaced in its functions as preposition and subordinator rapidly in early ME by till, a form found from earliest Old English on, but probably reinforced by Scandinavian influence. This replacement appears to have started in the East Midlands (Rissanen 2007). In present day British English negation with dosupport is favored with past tense of possessive have (They didn’t have any boots), but the default in the North is the older form hadn’t (They hadn’t no boots) (Schulz 2011). How should loss be modeled in a constructional network? Interestingly, the very same principles we adopted for growth can be applied to obsolescence, though we must usually add the further factor of ‘competition’ in the constructional network. According to Hudson (2007a) the change from token node to type node occurs when the former persists in memory, as mentioned in 2.3.3. Persistence in memory is aided by frequent and repeated use of similar tokens, which allows the language user to generalize, and through this, a construction may be created as a result of repeated exposure to similar tokens. Conversely, infrequent use of a construction—evidenced by infrequent constructs sanctioned by that construction—will lead to the weakening of that part of the constructional network to the extent that the construct is reinterpreted by speakers and hearers as not being sanctioned by a more productive construction. It may be assigned to a niche.6 In the nineteenth century, for example, -dom, came to be used largely with pejorative meaning, cf. duncedom, gangdom, a meaning which persists even when the N itself does not have negative semantics (attorneydom) (Marchand 1969: 264); recent examples are Blairdom (Trousdale 2008a) and Obamadom. Sometimes a formerly productive subschema may obsolesce, like the subschema with the form [ADJ + dom], of which few members remain, e.g. freedom, wisdom. During obsolescence, erstwhile productive and compositional patterns become idiosyncratic and unproductive. The generality of the type reduces, and the template sanctions fewer and fewer instances. The resulting loss of productivity may eventually lead to non-use and severance of the link between a subschema and a microconstruction. By way of example, consider the following constructional template deriving nouns from adjectives: [[ADJ + th] $ [‘entity with property denoted by ADJ’]]. This historically fairly productive template allowed for the creation of forms

6 Assignment to a niche does not necessarily involve obsolescence, however; see e.g. Torres Cacoullos and Walker (2009) on use of will and BE going to in complementary niches in Quebec English. Blythe and Croft (2012: 278) call this kind of change ‘reallocation’. It is related to the kind of reorganization discussed in the next section.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

69

such as warmth, health, truth and so on. It was a pattern that formed part of a more general deadjectival noun-forming schema. This schema includes subschemas with the forms [ADJ + ness] and [ADJ + ity]. Over time [ADJ + th] became less productive compared to the other templates. What became entrenched in later generations was not the general pattern [ADJ + th], but only its instantiations, stealth, truth and so on. In scenarios like this, language users are less frequently exposed to the more abstract construction, which loses vitality, and becomes increasingly dissociated from the more productive parts of the morphological network. Speakers neoanalyzed forms such as wealth, depth and breadth not as instances of a more general pattern that attaches a suffix to a morphophonological variant of an adjective, but as simple monomorphemes. In some cases the more general types can be reduced in generality to the point that they are so isolated that they are not understood by language users as being instances of a family at all, for instance, where historically productive patterns of word-formation are lost, and all the forms originally generated by that constructional schema are treated as monomorphemes (e.g. OE [ADJ/V + -sum] > ModE buxom, lissome, winsome). Such examples also demonstrate the gradient nature of analyzability: buxom is less analyzable than tiresome, for instance. Note that this is a property of the various micro-constructions: tiresome is more analyzable because the base is recognizable as a verb, while bux- in buxom is at best a cranberry morpheme (see further chapter 4, especially 4.6), and more likely simply unanalyzed as an instance of a complex schema, and treated as an atomic adjective. Loss of subschemas may be particularly common in the lexical domain, but it occurs throughout the constructional network as illustrated by loss of subtypes of the ditransitive construction (see 2.5.2 below). Sometimes more radical obsolescence occurs and a whole set of subschemas may cease to be used. Consider in this regard the English impersonal construction, a subtype of the transitive schema (cf. Me thirsts, Me likes it). There were a number of subtypes within the impersonal construction in the OE period, depending on the case of the nominal arguments. Restricting the discussion here to verbs with two arguments, Experiencer and Source, we can establish three subschemas as illustrated in Table 2.1 (the subtypes are labeled N, I, II following Elmer 1981 and Allen 1995).

TABLE 2.1. Subtypes of the English impersonal construction Type

Case of Experiencer

Case of Source

N I II

Dative or accusative Dative Nominative

Genitive Nominative Genitive

70

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Different verbs appeared in different impersonal subschemas in OE. Some were restricted to a particular micro-construction (e.g. lystan ‘desire’ appeared only in type N, laþian ‘loathe’ appeared only in type I, and behofian ‘have need of ’ appeared only in type II), while some could appear in two subschemas (sceamian ‘shame’ in types II and N) and one in all three (ofhreowan ‘rue’) (Allen 1995: 85). Over time, the subschemas fell into disuse as increasing numbers of speakers of English coded the relationship between Source and Experiencer with the more general transitive construction that had ‘nominative’ subjects (e.g. I rue my mistakes, She loathed him). The loss of these impersonal subschemas in the constructional network occurred gradually: for example, lician ‘to cause/feel pleasure’ appears to be restricted to the type I subschema in OE. As the transitive construction became more and more productive and general, lician began to be attested in the transitive construction with the grammatical case markings of nominative for subject and oblique for object, i.e. this particular impersonal was used in alternation with the transitive form. But even as late as the EModE period, vestiges of the old pattern persisted. This persistence can be observed in examples where the subject of like has the thematic role of Source and the object the role of Experiencer (18a), and in others where the subject has the role of Experiencer, and the object the role of Source (18b): (18)

a. these two, trauelinge into east these two travelling to East vnto an ale house . . . and callinge into an ale house and calling of the best ale, sat down of the best ale sat down ende: the lykor liked them so end the liquor pleased them so had pot vpon pot. had pot after pot (1567 Harman [HC cefict1a; Trousdale 2008c: 310])

kent, Kent for for at at well, well

resorted went a pot a pot the tables the table’s that they that they

b. yf my cosin like it, I will send him more if my cousin likes it, I will send him more. (1627 Meautys to Cornwallis [CEEC Cornwall; Trousdale 2008c: 310]) This gradual loss of the impersonal (on which see further Trousdale 2008c) correlates with a number of separate systemic changes in ME, including the loss of morphological case and the development of the obligatory (morpho)syntactic subject, which together promote the development of the transitive construction. Nonnominative subjects become gradually more and more atypical. The impersonal and its subschemas have disappeared from the English constructional network. In other words, there is no micro-construction whose verbal arguments are a non-nominative

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

71

pronoun and a clause. This is manifest in the absence of constructions like Them rues that X or Us likes that X and in the status of methinks in contemporary English. A remnant of the impersonal construction, methinks is no longer sanctioned by a productive impersonal construction in the synchronic grammar. Rather it has been neoanalyzed as an epistemic or evidential adverb functioning as a metatextual marker meaning ‘apparently’ or ‘in my opinion’. Many constructions are very long-lived, e.g. as long as in the temporal sense has been used (with changing phonology) from EME times on. But sometimes constructions are used for a short while only. Examples include use of do in affirmative clauses in EModE (Nevalainen 2004), of aspectualizers such as stinten and finen, both meaning ‘finish’, in ME (Brinton 1988), and of all as a quotative at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Buchstaller, Rickford, Traugott, and Wasow 2010). There appears to be nothing inherent in a micro-construction that leads to long or short life. The determining factor is convention in a population of speakers. Nor does there appear to be anything intrinsic in a schema that leads to long or short life, high or low productivity. 2.5.2 Reconfiguration of links Changes over time in the network are not limited to creation and loss. As a result of on-line processing and neoanalysis there may be changes in the configuration of families of related nodes in the network, in other words, of subschemas and even schemas. An example of change in inheritance links is provided by Colleman and De Clerck (2011) who show that several subtypes of ditransitive that had developed by the eighteenth century have been lost, marginalized or reduced. The subschema of verbs of banishment or exclusion (e.g. banish, dismiss, expel, forbid) has essentially been lost in standard British English. Colleman and De Clerck (2011: 194) cite the examples in (19): (19)

a. I therefore for the present dismiss’d him the Quarter deck. (1771 Cook, Journal [CL 1]) b. he therefore forbade her the court. (1744 Walpole, Letters [CL 1])

Other subschemas have been severely reduced. For example, there has been loss of some verbs of benefaction (water, as in she watered me the plants) and communication (repeat as in repeat you a sentence). However, there may be differences in acceptability if the recipient is a pronoun, e.g. shouted him the answer.7 Some 7 There may also be differences among varieties of English. Hoffmann and Mukherjee (2007) identify several ‘unusual’ ditransitives in Indian English and conclude that e.g. He informed me the story is an innovation in this variety. However, Colleman and De Clerck (2011: 197–198) include inform among a larger ditransitive set of communication verbs that have become obsolete in standard English since the eighteenth century, so it may actually be a residue from earlier colonial times.

72

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

members of the subtypes that have been lost, especially verbs of manner of locution (e.g. shout, whisper), have been recruited to what Goldberg (1995: 89–91) calls the transfer-caused-motion construction, or the ‘prepositional paraphrase’ of the ditransitive (Max gave the robot to him). Historically the relationship between manner of speaking verbs and the ditransitive and transfer-caused-motion construction appears to have been very close from early ME on since some verbs, especially manner of speaking verbs, have been alternating between both (see Sowka-Pietraszewska 2011) for over a millenium. As mentioned in 2.4.2, Goldberg (1995: 89–91, 2006: 9) argues that the ditransitive and transfer-cause-motion constructions have only apparent similarity; indeed, ‘the ditransitive and its prepositional paraphrase are not related by an inheritance link’ Goldberg (1995: 100). They do, however, appear to have had significant synonymy links over time, and to support Perek’s (2012) conclusion cited above in 2.4.2 that language-users can generalize over alternations even when these do not have the same formal properties. One of the most detailed studies to date of reorganization of inheritance links is Torrent (2011, Forthcoming) using a FrameNet analysis. Torrent discusses changes in Peninsular and then Brazilian Portuguese of the inheritance links8 shared by the family of para infinitive constructions of which the current central type is illustrated by: (20) Ela mandou o dinheiro para mim pagar o livro. she sent some money for me buy-INF a book ‘She sent money for me to buy a book’. (Torrent Forthcoming) According to Torrent the syntax of this construction is [NP V para (NP) VINF] and its meaning is [Adjunctive Purpose]. The subtype in (20) is a blend of the Transference and Purpose constructions. He argues that a small family of modal purposive constructions was reconfigured in the thirteenth century and expanded in such a way that from the twentieth century on it inherits from aspect as well as modality. Furthermore, the set of subtypes has been expanded from four to eleven. An example of changes in polysemy links is provided by Patten (2010, 2012) in her account of types of IT-cleft. She proposes that the IT-cleft was originally a focus construction in which the post-copular focal element is identified or specified (as opposed to being described and predicated) and the relative is a presupposed relative clause equivalent to PDE (21): (21)

It was Sally who killed her. (Patten 2010: 226)

In (21) Sally is the focus, and is specified as the unique member of a set (people who killed her, which is expressed in a presupposed relative). Patten argues that this specificational IT-cleft is attested from OE on with NP foci, but constraints on the 8 Torrent includes relational polysemy, metaphor and subpart links under inheritance, so the changes are more complex than suggested here.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

73

post-copular slot have gradually been relaxed over time, such that prepositional phrases, because-clauses and even adjectives can also be focused as in (22): (22)

a. It’s in December that she’s coming. b. It’s because it is your birthday that she is coming. c. It’s not sick that he was but tired. (Patten 2010: 239, citing Kiss 1998: 262)

Furthermore, the informative presupposition IT-cleft, in which new information is presented in the relative clause, is also an extension of the IT-cleft. In (23) the relative clause is not accessible from the context, or known to the hearer, but marks ‘A PIECE OF INFORMATION AS FACT, known to some people although not yet known to the intended hearer’ (Prince 1978: 899–900, capitals original), as in: (23)

(start of a lecture) It was Cicero who once said, ‘Laws are silent at times of war’. (Patten 2010: 222, 234)

Patten argues that the development of the Informative Presupposition IT-cleft is an extension that is linked by polysemy to the Focus IT-cleft and not a separate construction as Prince (1978) and Ball (1994) suggest. Patten’s argument is supported by the fact that Informative Presupposition IT-clefts are specificational and imply the relative is a known fact (see also Lambrecht 1994). Early examples can be found in ME, but the frequency does not increase significantly until the modern period.

2.6 Categories, gradience, and gradualness As indicated in chapter 1, we understand the network of constructions to be nonmodular. Every node is a complex of form-meaning structures. At the micro-level, some constructions are primarily contentful. These are specific instances in most languages of the more general constructional types which refer and predicate, frequently characterized as nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Prototypically these are ‘lexical’ and refer to entities, situations, and descriptions in the world. Other constructions are primarily ‘grammatical one than other subnetworks because it is aspectual and iterative. It is the outcome of successive constructional changes in which verbs’. They are grammatical and range from markers of case, tense, aspect, and modality to markers of information-structure (topic and focus), and of speaker’s attitude to what is said (pragmatic markers, comment clauses). There is a gradation from contentful/lexical to procedural/grammatical, with noun, verb, adjective at the contentful pole and abstract markers such as mood or topic at the procedural pole (Lehmann 2004, Brinton and Traugott 2005, Muysken 2008). A particularly clear example of this gradation is the category of adverbs in English since it is made up of partly lexical and partly grammatical constructions. In English, which has a very rich system of adverbs, manner adverbs tend to be on the contentful end of the continuum, e.g. foolishly, fast, while focus marking adverbs, e.g. only, even, and degree adverbs like very, quite are on the procedural end. In some other languages

74

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

with more restrictive adverbial systems, most or all adverbs may be primarily on the procedural end of the continuum (see Ramat and Ricca 1994). The categories that instantiate lexical and grammatical material are gradient in that some are ‘better’ representatives than others of the category in question. Essentially the idea is that categories are not homogeneous or discrete. This concept relates to ‘goodness of exemplar’ and ‘degree of membership’ as developed in prototype theory (see e.g. Rosch 1973, Geeraerts 1997, and later developments within cognitive linguistics such as are summarized in Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007). Denison (2010) discusses some of the problems with idealized, rigid categories, illustrating with discussion of fun (N with ADJ properties, cf. very fun, fun time). Aarts (2007) lays out the problems in far greater detail, exemplifying with examples like utter (a ‘poor’ member of the category ADJ, because it cannot be used predicatively: *The nonsense was utter, or as a comparative in *utterer nonsense). Bybee (2010: 2) illustrates the ways in which ‘lexical morphemes change their meaning and nature depending on the company they keep’ with go, which often behaves like a lexical motion verb, but is less lexical, more procedural in e.g. go wrong, go ahead (and), go boom, let’s go have lunch, go-quotative (as in and I go ‘What do you mean? ’ ), and BE going to (future). As constructions change over time, and especially as lexical items in certain contexts are recruited by speakers to serve grammatical purposes, instances of what may be relatively ‘good’ exemplars of their categories (and may remain so) typically undergo ‘decategorialization’ and lose some prototypical characteristics. For example the OE lexical verb mag- ‘have the power’ could be used as a non-finite verb, intransitively with a PP, and in a variety of tenses. When it was routinized and recruited to a grammatical modal construction, non-finite and intransitive uses obsolesced—its verbal status was decategorialized (Plank 1984, Warner 1993). In this case, the original verb mag- was eventually lost. When the quantifier any was agglutinated to the noun way as in anyway (adverb and later pragmatic marker), the N ceased in this fixed phrase to be used with nominal modifiers such as adjectives and determiners or in the plural—its nominal status was decategorialized. Way came to be a poor representative of N in this construction. However, the original noun way and the quantifier any continued to exist side by side with the new construction anyway. Usually only one feature of a construction changes at a time. This means steps are small. A succession of small discrete steps in change is a crucial aspect of what is known as ‘gradualness’ (Lichtenberk 1991b). We understand ‘gradualness’ to refer to a phenomenon of change, specifically discrete structural micro-changes and tiny-step transmission across the linguistic system (Traugott and Trousdale 2010a).9

This understanding of ‘gradualness’ is to be distinguished from the one prevalent in the generative literature (e.g. Roberts 2007), where ‘gradualness’ is used to refer to transmission or diffusion across networks of speakers. 9

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

75

Synchronically it is manifest in small-scale variation and ‘gradience’ (‘changes are always manifest in synchronic variation’, Andersen 2001: 228). This means that at any moment in time changing constructions contribute to gradience in the system.10 An important distinction we would make in this regard is that while gradualness (change over time) may be generationally discrete, gradience (variation in the synchronic grammar) cannot be. Another important point is that, given the model we are adopting, the ‘small steps’ may not be on a continuous unidirectional path, but links from one feature to another across nodes. Since ‘steps’ are instantaneous, even though small, and the network is multidirectional, the question arises whether there are any changes that are not gradual in the sense outlined above. For example, are there changes that occur as singletons and not as the result of a series of changes? We have suggested that the answer to the latter question is positive, at least in the domain of lexical micro-constructionalization. Examples include borrowings and conversions (for the latter see chapter 1.5.4 and chapter 4.8). A second question is whether there are changes that are abrupt in that they are large-step changes. This question has been addressed extensively in the grammaticalization literature where there has been discussion of whether reanalysis is abrupt and if so whether it has anything to do with grammaticalization. For example, Haspelmath (1998) dissociated reanalysis from grammaticalization on the grounds that reanalysis is abrupt. Lehmann (2004: 10) also dissociated reanalysis from grammaticalization, more on the grounds that reanalysis is a two-step process not a series of changes, than because it is abrupt. Roberts (1993) on the other hand, proposed that grammaticalization is a subtype of reanalysis. Much of this debate hinged on the fact that Lightfoot (1979) privileged large-scale changes in morphosyntax resulting from massive cumulation of small steps, variously referred to as ‘catastrophic’ or ‘cataclysmic’ changes. In the 1990s the parameters of generative syntax were macro-parameters, so any parameter change was necessarily conceptualized as large-scale and abrupt. By the beginning of the twenty-first century many generative syntacticians had turned to micro- rather than macro- parameters (e.g. Roberts 2010, van Gelderen 2011), so that parametric change was necessarily reconceptualized as small-scale. We take the position that reanalysis (or rather neoanalysis) involves a micro-step change. Such a micro-step may or may not create a new node in the network. Some neoanalyses are constructional changes; these do not create new type-nodes in the network. Series of constructional changes may lead to a constructionalization. This too is a relatively small step neoanalysis. In this case neoanalysis results in the creation of a formnew-meaningnew type node in the network. Sometimes cumulations of small-scale constructionalizations may lead to larger-scale systemic ones, as Lightfoot (1979) rightly pointed out, but these systemic 10 For some challenges in thinking about the intersection of gradience with gradualness, especially in the domain of grammaticalization, see Traugott and Trousdale (2010a, b).

76

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

changes themselves developed gradually, for example, the generalization of periphrastic expressions of case. We do not privilege them over individual smaller changes.

2.7 A case study: the development of the way-construction revisited In this section we show how the approach outlined above can inform the study of a change over several centuries by distinguishing between constructional changes and constructionalization, identifying reorganization of subschemas, and considering networks among schemas. We revisit the development of the way-construction, to our knowledge the first set of historical changes to be investigated from a construction grammar perspective (Israel 1996), and suggest ways in which the original analysis may be enhanced. 2.7.1 The way-construction in PDE Some contemporary examples of the way-construction are: (24)

a. After tucking him in, Lindsay made her way down the stairs to the kitchen (2012 Clipston, A Life of Joy [COCA]) b. she trash-talked her way into a Strikeforce title shot. (March 4th 2012, Vancouver Sun [Google; accessed March 4th 2012])

Drawing on Levin and Rapoport (1988) and Jackendoff (1990) among others, Goldberg (1995: 199) characterizes the form of the way-construction as: (25)

[SUBJi [V POSSi way] OBL]

Following Mondorf (2011) we suggest that OBL should be replaced by DIR(ectional) since direction is crucial to the construction and needs to be distinguished from obliques such as locatives (see 2.7.3). The way-construction implies that the subject referent moves along a path, but none of the verbs that appear in the construction in PDE according to Goldberg are in fact motion verbs; they include make, dig, and belch, but not e.g. go, come, run. She suggests that the prototypical verb of this highly productive construction is make, and the prototypical way-construction involves a frame with three components: ‘the creator-theme, the createe-way, and the path’ (Goldberg 1995: 207). In many cases motion in the face of external difficulties or obstacles is implied (force one’s way), but not in all (whistle one’s way). She relates the construction to ‘fake-object’ resultatives (pp. 215–217), e.g.: (26)

a. He cried his eyes red. b. He talked himself hoarse.

but argues that they are not members of the same construction because resultatives are more restrictive. While we agree that the way-construction is different from the

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

77

‘fake-object resultative’, two points may be noted here. One is that some members of a schema may be far more restrictive than others, e.g. a shred of is more restrictive than a bit of in that it is preferred with negative polarity (e.g. not a shred of hope) and with positive semantic orientation (positive hope, trust are preferred over semantically negative despair, falsehood); a shred of is also significantly less frequent than a bit of. Therefore comparative restrictiveness is not necessarily a reason for claiming separate schemas. A network approach allows for some constructions to be more distantly related within and across schemas than others. The second point is that since the way-construction normally occurs with a PP, a more relevant fake-object resultative would be the subclass with PPs like (29): (27) He worked himself into a frenzy. In 2.7.5 below we mention Mondorf ’s (2011) suggestion that there is a historical reason for the restrictiveness of the resultative compared with that of the wayconstruction. A network account allows us to show that the resultative is now a somewhat distantly related member of the network—not the ‘same’ construction, but nevertheless closely linked. Jackendoff (2002: 174) provides a more general characterization of the way-construction than Goldberg and says it means ‘roughly “traverse the path PP while/by doing V” ’. He notes that the verb in a way-construction must designate a process: it is ‘inherently a process verb (e.g. eat, whistle, roll) or else describes a repeated bounded event (e.g. belch, joke, hammer)’ (Jackendoff 1990: 213). Although the string appears to be transitive (way appears to be object), the construction is transitive in form only and has ‘profound incompatibility with the passive’ (Jackendoff 1990: 216). Based on various data bases and on frequency of attestation, Goldberg concludes that there are two polysemous constructions, one central or basic, which she calls ‘means’ (means of motion and creation of a path), e.g. make, dig, worm, and the other ‘a less basic extension’, which she calls ‘manner’ (movement along a path in a certain manner), e.g. clang, clack (p. 203); many of the latter are sounds that could accompany motion along a path. In our terminology these are polysemous subschemas of the superordinate way-construction schema. Using the OED as a database, Israel argues, as does Mondorf, that the wayconstruction arises out of several different ‘threads’ that coalesced largely through analogical patterning, a hypothesis that we only partially support. Like Goldberg, Israel uses the terms ‘manner’ and ‘means’, but the categorizations are not equivalent. Israel’s first three threads are in fact subsets of Goldberg’s ‘means’. (a) The ‘manner’ thread. This involves ‘verbs coding path shape, rate, and manner of motion’ (Israel 1996: 221), as in (28a). (b) The ‘acquisition or maintenance of possession of the path’ thread (mentioned in a footnote on p. 221), as in (28b).

78

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes (c) The ‘means’ thread. This involves verbs coding path-creation (p. 223), as in (28c). (d) The ‘incidental activity’ thread (p. 224). This is largely populated by verbs of sound that might be made during making of motion or creation of a path, e.g. whistle, hem, haw (28d). It is what Goldberg calls the ‘manner’ construction.

We illustrate them with relatively recent examples from CLMETEV: (28)

a. therewith he winged his way into the deep sky. (1885 Pater, Marius the Epicurian [CL 3]) b. How could she find her way home? How could she find her way about in Santa Croce? (1908 Forster, Room with a View [CL 3]) c. before long I was out of sight of the camp, plowing my way through the mud. (1894 Kipling, Jungle Book [CL 3]) d. The steamer . . . came at last in sight, plashed its way forward, stopped, and I was soon on board. (1842 Borrow, Bible in Spain [CL 2])

Israel finds continuity from ME times in terms of the sets of verbs available (except for pure motion verbs like go), and ‘consistency of usage’ (1996: 223). According to Israel, what he calls the ‘manner’ thread ((a) above) is the earliest subschema, appearing as early as the fifteenth century in a limited set of collocations like motion go/run/wend one’s way. Later verbs like sweep, scramble, wing, worm were added to this set. The ‘acquisition or maintenance of a path’ thread (b) with verbs like take, find is also attested early. The ‘means’ thread (c) arose by the mid seventeenth century with verbs like cut and smooth. Israel argues that these three schemas intertwined, leading to the PDE construction. The fourth ‘incidental activity’ thread (d) developed in the mid nineteenth century; Israel comments that many ‘are still unacceptable for many speakers’ (p. 224). Israel’s analysis, like Goldberg’s, was based in frame semantics and primarily informed by the question how motion, path, manner, and cause are combined in lexical items (Talmy 1985). It invokes analogy where categories appear to break down. Despite its overall correctness with respect to the periods in which types of verbs begin to appear in the textual record investigated, this analysis appears to overprivilege manner. The early manner uses which Israel identifies are motion verbs (run, wend).11 While run has some manner (speed) built into it, wend is more problematic. Wend- was originally a transitive verb meaning ‘turn’, but the OED lists an intransitive use meaning ‘go’ from the eleventh century. Its past tense went became the suppletive past tense of go during the ME period, replacing yede. Most

11 Goldberg (1995: 204) also treats wend as a manner of motion verb. She includes it with thread, weave as ‘methodical winding motion’ involving some difficulty on the path.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

79

examples of wend appear to involve the plain intransitive motion sense, whether past or present tense, for example: (29) Eliezer is went his wei And haueð hem boden godun dai. Eliezer has gone his way and has them bidden good day ‘Eliezer has left and bidden them good day’. (a1325(c1250) Gen. & Ex. [MED dai]) Israel comments on the history of the way-construction: The remarkable thing about this long evolution is the consistency of usage over the centuries. In every period certain predicates—go,12 make, work, pursue, wing—tend to recur and predominate in usage. (Israel 1996: 223)

We investigate when and how the construction came into being and whether the early data provide evidence of a construction similar to the contemporary one. Below we develop two hypotheses. One is that although there is considerable continuity in surface form, there has in fact been some substantial neoanalysis of the schematic relations between way and the verbs with which it collocates. Specifically, there is little or no direct continuity between use of go and manner verbs like scramble, wing, and worm. The second hypothesis is that the main organizing factors are causative and non-causative semantics (cf. Goldberg’s creation of a path and motion along a path). For PDE we posit the schema in (30), using Jackendoff ’s (2002: 174) semantic characterization: (30)

[SUBJi [V POSSi way] (DIR)] $ [‘SEMi traverse the path PP while/by doing V’]]

Reasons for this characterization will be discussed below, as will the subschemas of this larger schema, some of which are causative. 2.7.2 Precursors of the way-construction The development of the way-construction illustrates both how extant networks may serve as contexts in which changes can occur and also the problem of assessing which parts of the network are most relevant for a change to occur. Two subschemas of the contemporary way-construction favour verbs used in manner of motion constructions and in sound or activity accompanying motion constructions. This is not how the way-construction was initially formed. In a search for constructs with way in ME our corpora suggest that there were two distinct sets of precursors with wei: an intransitive motion set, and a transitive set. MED (wei 2b) comments that ‘wei and phrases such as on wei combine with almost any verb

12 This contradicts Goldberg’s hypothesis that go does not occur in PDE. We will show in 2.7.4 that Israel is correct: go is still used (but relatively infrequently and only in a construction without DIR).

80

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

denoting locomotion, forward progress, or the like’. The sample provided in MED includes citations with go, wend, fare, flee, and ride. These are used as unergative intransitives. Of these, only ride clearly involves manner. Investigating the development of intransitive manner of motion verbs, Fanego (2012a) chronicles steep increases during ME, early and late ModE in the number of verbs specifying manner of motion. Some were borrowed in ME from Old Norse (skip) and others from French (dance); others were extended uses of verbs extant in OE (glide, walk (< walk- ‘roll’)). It appears that despite the availability of manner of motion verbs in ME, probably none except ride played a direct role in the development of the way-construction. In addition to intransitives, a few of which could also be used transitively, like flee, and ride, MED also cites some examples of wei with transitives, mainly the acquisition verbs nim- ‘take’, take. Israel cites the acquisition set only in a footnote (Israel 1996: 221), but since it is transitive and causative (‘cause self to have’), it probably played an important part in the development of the way-construction. Being interested primarily in motion, manner, and cause, although he cites the verbs in question, Israel does not focus on the intransitive–transitive distinction. However, as we will show, the distinction and especially the acquisition thread are important in thinking about what the grammatical status of way is in the ME and early EModE periods. Before discussing the status of way in ME, we note that it may be used with POSS (31a, b), but it also appears with a preposition as in (33b), with a demonstrative or article as in (31c, d), and in the plural as in (31d): (31)

a. Þe kniht tok leue and the knight took leave and (1390 St.Greg. 34 [MED clot])

wente went

b. Ryde on your wey, for I wille Ride on your way for I will (1485 Malory Wks [MED wei 2b (d)])

his his

not not

wei. way be long be long

behynde. behind

c. and to him þaene wei he nam. and to him that way he took (1300 SLeg.Becket 713 [MED wei 2b (b)]) d. And went the wayes hym by-fore. and went the ways him before (c1450 Parl. 3 Ages 37 [MED wei 2b (a)]) Another striking property of the examples, especially those with motion verbs, is that few collocate with a directional: (32) a. As he wende his wei, seh þis as he went his way, saw this (c. 1225 St. Marg. [MED wei 2b (a)])

seli blessed

meiden maiden

Margarete. Margaret

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change b. Ah, flih, flih þinne wæi & burh þine Ah, flee, flee your way and save your (c. 1275 Layamon, Brut 8024 [MED wei 2b (d)])

81

life! life!

An apparent exception is the adverb forth, which quite frequently collocates with a motion verb in the MED data. However, it appears to be a mobile part of a complex predicate (intransitives like fare/drive (forth)) and is not necessarily a directional adjunct: (33)

a. Moyses . . . ferde forþ on his weiʒ. Moses went forth on his way (c1175 H Rood 4/33 [MED wei 2b (a)]) b. In the see she dryueth forth hir weye. in the sea she drives forth her way (c. 1390 Chaucer, CT Melibee B. 875 [MED wei 2b (b)])

With hindsight early examples such as (32a) and (33a) might suggest routinizing of way as a fake object as early as ME, what Israel (1996: 221) calls a general go-your-path construction. However, this analysis is not supported since POSS is not required and way appears not to have been a fake object that is the complement of the verb. In the case of the intransitive unergative motion verbs way appears to have been used as one of the larger class of adverbial adjuncts, some of which are PPs and some monomorphemic. In addition to collocation with an article rather than POSS (31c, d), use in a PP (31b, 33a), and use in the plural (31d), among pieces of evidence that wei is not a complement of the verb is (34). Here wei is part of an NP used as a directional coordinated with another directional adverbial: (34) Go we þane narewe pað and þene wei grene. go we that narrow path and that way green ‘Let us take the narrow path and the green way’. (a1225 PMor. 343 [MED grene]) In the case of the transitives, way appears to have been parsed as an object at this period. Evidence is provided by the use with an article (31c, 35a, c), object-inversion (31c, 35a), separation from the verb (35a, b), and use with an adjective (35c): (35)

a. To þe castel med wiþoute toun Þun wei sone he nom. to the castle meadow outside town that way soon he took ‘He soon took the path to the castle meadow outside town’. (c1325 Glo.Chron A 11255 [MED castel]) b. Turne we to ure drihten on riht bileue . . . Turn we to our lord in true belief . . . maken us wei to him. make ourselves way to him ‘Let us turn to our lord . . . and make a path to him for ourselves’. (a1225 Trin.Hom. 129 [MED neighlechen])

and and

82

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes c. The God of oure heelthis schal make an eesie wei to vs. the god of our health shall make an easy way to us (a1425 WBible Ps. 67.20 [MED eesie])

Note that (35b) is a reflexive construction (see French s’en aller ‘go, betake oneself ’). As mentioned above, Israel (1996: 221) refers to a general go-your-path construction. He also comments that ‘any noun meaning something like “way” appears to have worked in this construction’ (Israel 1996: 221), but he assumes this construction is ‘optional possessed path’ and does not give a further analysis. Among motion constructions in ME Fanego (2012b) found in the MED several instances of the noun pas (‘step’) many of them with a possessive and a transitive verb (e.g. make, take) as in (36) and hypothesizes that these were the template for the way-construction (p.c.). (36)

a. Toward temes he made his pas; & whan þat toward Thames he made his way; and when that he at temes come . . . he at Thames came ‘He made his way toward the Thames; and when he to came to the Thames . . . ’ (c1330 SMChron.(Auch) [MED maken v.1]) b. Joseph anon nom his pas Joseph straight-away took his way his bodi vppon þe tre. his (Christ’s) body on the tree (cross) (c1390 Dial.Bern.& V.(2) (Vrn) [MED nimen])

And and

bed asked-for

However, although such constructs no doubt played a role in the development of the way-construction, pas also frequently occurs with an indefinite article or an adjective. It appears to be an object. Therefore examples with both pas and wei appear to be instances of an acquisition subschema of the transitive construction, in which they function as a spatial object: (37)

[[SUBJanim VTRacquisition {(DET) pas/wei}OBJ]13 $ [‘SEMi take a path’]]

In sum, the hypothesis is that in ME there was no unique, productive way-schema with a distinct form-meaning pattern, only constructs that were instances of an intransitive motion construction and a transitive acquisition construction, some of which happened to include the lexical/referential construction wei. A simplified representation is provided in Figure 2.2.

13

The notation {(DET) pas, wei}OBJ is a shorthand to indicate that only those instances of the transitive acquisition construction which combine with a determiner and an object that is pas or wei are relevant.

83

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change TR cxn

ITR cxn

…

way-motion

acquisition (with wei object)

…

Figure 2.2 Way-patterns at the beginning of the 17th century

2.7.3 Constructionalization of the way-construction By the early sixteenth century we find increasing preference in MED and the Helsinki Corpus for an unergative pattern restricted mainly to deictic motion verbs like go (without e.g. forþ) and come, POSS rather than definite article, wei rather than ways, and without a preceding preposition. In religious texts in HC it is typically not followed by DIR (38). (38) Iesus saith vnto him, Go thy way, Jesus says to him Go your way, And the man beleeued the word that and the man believed The word that vnto him, and he went his way. to him and he went his way (1611 King James Bible, New Testament [HC centest2])

thy your Iesus Jesus

sonne son had had

liueth. lives spoken said

However, in other text types a directional is preferred: (39)

a. This poller then sayd to hym go this thief then said to him Go thend of y=t= long entre. the end of that long entrance (1526 Hundred Merry Tales [HC cefict1a])

thy your

way way

streyght straight

to to

b. So wee toke our leve of hyme, and came our wayes bake so we took our leave of him and came our ways back agayne to Huntyngeton. again to Huntington (b1553 Mowntayne, Autobiography [HC ceauto1]) Such examples suggest that a relatively routinized deictic motion verb + way meaning ‘go along a path’ construction with POSS indexing an animate subject was emerging as a subschema of the intransitive construction. Semantically these examples are relatively compositional: motion is expressed by the verb and path by way, but syntactically they do not conform to any regular adverbial pattern. Way, which was a member of DIR patterning with e.g. there, has been neoanalyzed as fake

84

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

object, the complement of a motion verb, perhaps analogized with the transitive acquisition pattern in (37). There is therefore mismatch between the syntax and the semantics. While the set of intransitive motion verbs was being narrowed in EModE, the transitive set was being expanded in EModE with take (which has replaced nim at this time) as the prototype. There is construction-type (host-class) expansion of POSS way to new verbs including make, and pave, sometimes with non-animate subjects. These are causative (take is ‘cause to receive’ and make is ‘cause to come into being’). DIR becomes distinctly preferred. Particularly interesting in this connection is an account of the eruption of Mt. Ætna by the Earl of Winchilsea, Ambassador to Constantinople, who was in Sicily when the eruption occurred. After the eruption, torrents of volcanic fires destroyed all things in their way (an obstruction expression). The torrents split into several streams, one of which is described in (40a). The further progress of the volcanic stream over the next two days is described in (40b) and (40c): (40)

a. [The fire] on the East part ruin'd the lower part of Mascalucia, and LePlacchi, taking its way towards this City. b. on which day fell abundance of Rain, which abated not the progress of the Fire; which on the East side had from Mascalucia made its way to St. Giovanni di Galermo, the lower part whereof it destroy'd. c. the stream of fiery Matter which destroyed the lower part of St. Giovanni di Galermo divided it self into two parts, one of its branches taking its way toward Mosterbianco. (1669 Winchilsea, Relation of the Earthquake and Eruption of Mt. Ætna [Lampeter msca1669.sgm])

Notable here are priming by all things in their way, the apparent alternation between take its way and make its way, and the use of the construction with a non-animate subject. Such uses appear to be pre-constructionalization CCs that enabled the development of the way-construction. The textual data suggest that by the end of the seventeenth century a wayconstruction with transitive verbs had arisen. It had been emancipated from the transitive construction and was independent of that construction, although closely networked with it because the verbs sanctioned by the way-construction are at this time transitive: (41)

[[SUBJi [VTRcausative POSSi way] (DIR)] $ [‘SEMi cause to traverse a path’]]

This is a constructionalization: way no longer functions as an object, but is a fixed part of a causative construction, in which a DIR is preferred. A number of new verbs meaning ‘creating a path’ (the set that Goldberg considers prototypical for PDE) are attested at this time. The path-creation is often achieved by some specific means,

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

85

e.g. fight, battle, force, push, drag, and often in the face of some obstruction or opposition, e.g.: (42)

Afterwards about a dozen of them went into the Kitchin, forcing their way against all the Bolts and Locks, making the very Iron Bolts and Wooden Doors to yield to their wicked and bloody Designs. (1690 Trial of John Williams et al. [OBP t16900430-8])

Two subschemas of the new way-construction can therefore be posited: one involving verbs of obstruction (e.g. dig, push), the other not (e.g. make, take). There is a sub-formula of (41) with made (the best of) POSS way that has a modal implicature. The examples involve adverse contexts in which the protagonist has encountered some difficulty and is understood to make the best way they can to wherever they are going. (43)

a. I will answer for it the book shall make its way in the world, much better than its master has done before it. (1759-67 Sterne, Tristram Shandy [CL 1]) b. With men she is insupportable. I have never understood how that poor woman has made her way. With women she is charming. But she seems to be incapable of not treating men like dogs. (1908 Bennett, Old Wives’ Tale [CL 3])

This construction involves an optional locative (43a) instead of a directional prepositional phrase, which confirms that the designation DIR is to be preferred over OBL in the way-construction. Given the non-productivity in the seventeenth century of the intransitive schema in terms of both type productivity (it was largely restricted to go), and token productivity, we may hypothesize that at this time it was still part of the intransitive motion construction, and therefore not yet part of the way-construction. The latter was transitive, causative, and both type and token productive. However, both form and meaning similarities must have allowed the intransitive subschema to be closely networked with the independent way-construction. The reconfigured network is summarized in Figure 2.3.

ITR cxn

…

way-motion

way-cxn

obstruction

no obstruction

FIGURE 2.3 Way-patterns at the end of the 17th century

TR cxn

…

…

86

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

2.7.4 Further expansion of the way-construction From the end of the seventeenth century the kinds of verbs that can appear in the transitive way-subschema expands exponentially. The semantics of verbs like force, fight, dig involves some implied accompanying manner of action, especially in the case of dig. A new subset of manner of action verbs—some of which are only marginally causative or transitive—begins to appear, including beg, worm, and elbow: (44)

a. While elbowing my way through the unknown multitude that flows between Charing Cross and the Royal Exchange. (1821 Galt, Ayrshire Legatees [CL 2]) b. so I took a towel and crept out on the bank and wormed my way along on to the branch of a tree that dipped down into the water. (1889 Jerome, Three Men in a Boat [CL 3]) c. I saw the ponderous foreleg [of an elephant] cleave its way through the jungle directly upon me. (1854 Baker, Rifle and Hound in Ceylon [CL 3])

Some of these, like worm and elbow, are conversions from nouns. Most imply obstruction (elbow) or difficulty (worm, beg). The lexical verbs entail some kind of manner (‘ask humbly (for food or money)’; ‘use one’s elbow’, etc.) but not motion. The construction, however, imposes a motion meaning, a phenomenon called ‘coercion’.14 This is particularly clear with worm which in other constructs at the time meant and still usually means ‘extract worms from’—*I wormed quickly toward my servant is not possible. He dug through does not mean quite the same thing as He dug his way through; only the latter implies significant obstruction (contrast He dug a hole). DIR is strongly preferred with these verbs, and seems to be almost obligatory when the verb has little or no semantic link with motion.15 The directional adverbs home, (in)to, through, toward(s) are especially favored, but many others also occur such as up, down, out of, eastwards, southwards. More than one directional may be expressed as in (45). Some examples are attested of a nondirectional adverb between way and DIR. They are typically adverbs of manner (quickly in (45a)) or accompaniment (with my poor outcast child in (45b)): (45)

a. I wormed my way quickly towards my former servant. (1898 Hope, Rupert of Hentzau [CL 3]) b. I was banished the county, begged my way with my poor outcast child up to Edinburgh. (1824 Hogg, Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner [CL 2])

14 15

See chapter 5.2.2 for discussion of the concept of ‘coercion’. However, as Mondorf (2011) points out, pursue X’s way is particularly unlikely to occur with DIR.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

87

The possibility of using an adjunct before OBL (our DIR) is noted for PDE in Jackendoff (1990: 212) and used to argue that there is a constituent break after way. The set of verbs under discussion here, which share the semantics of manner to some degree or another, appear to have enabled the further development of a subnetwork in which accompanying action is inferred from use in the construction (Israel 1996: 219). Israel (p. 224) notes that by the early nineteenth century some new verbs appear, the semantics of which involves accompanying sound, e.g. plash as in (28d) above, repeated here as (46b), and characterizes them as conveying ‘incidental accompaniment’. However, the accompaniment is not necessarily incidental, as shown by shoot (46a); here the shooting (of pheasants) is an intended accompanying action. While plash in (46b) is not volitional and therefore intended, light splashing is an inevitable accompaniment of a steamer in motion. We therefore do not use the restrictor ‘incidental’. (46)

a. and shot my way home the next day; having . . . equally divided the game between the three (1820–2 Hunt, Memoirs of Henry Hunt [CL 2]) b. The steamer . . . plashed its way forward. (1842 Borrow, Bible in Spain [CL 2])

Most contemporary novel examples are, like shoot and plash, of the non-causal accompaniment type (e.g. trash-talk in (24b), giggle). Two striking things should be noted. One is that members of this new set of verbs may be intransitive. Verbs like dig, which can be either transitive or intransitive, may have been transitional types enabling intransitive verbs of manner to be recruited into the construction. Such verbs had been increasing since ME independently of way, especially verbs of sound (Fanego 2012b). The second striking thing is that in the way-construction these verbs are understood aspectually, as occurring iteratively. For example, in (46a) shot my way home is understood as ‘repeatedly shot (pheasants) for the duration of my trip home’. This is the set of verbs that fulfils the criterion of iterativity that Jackendoff (1990: 213) suggests for the way-construction. The ‘accompaniment’ subnetwork is a more procedural/grammatical one than other subnetworks because it is aspectual and iterative. It is the outcome of successive constructional changes in which verbs are recruited to the larger subschema. Many of the constructs that express this subschema are ‘one-offs’ (also called hapax legomena). Plag (2006: 543) argues that one-offs based on a pattern are ‘an important measure for estimating the productivity of a morphological process’ (see also Baayen and Renouf 1996). While comments of this kind are often made in connection with word-formation, they clearly also apply to complex constructions generally. The occurrence of hapax legomena suggests that the way-schema has become highly productive. It is an example of a construction the members of which were originally relatively contentful and lexical but that has been expanded in the direction of the

88

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

grammatical/procedural pole of the contentful-procedural gradient. It has come to be ‘intermediate’ between the two poles in this sense. As a result of the expansion of verb types available and the growth of subnetworks, it appears that in the early nineteenth century there was a reorganization of expressions with the form [SUBJi [V POSSi way] (DIR)] linked to a motion meaning. They were gathered into the contemporary schema, which appears above as (30), and is repeated here as (47): (47) [SUBJi [V POSS i way] (DIR)] $ [‘SEMi traverse the path PP while/by doing V’]] This is a second constructionalization. By hypothesis, because the transitive wayconstruction had been expanded to include intransitive verbs like beg and worm, the way-subschema of the intransitive construction was analogized to the originally transitive construction and absorbed into it, so that the way-construction now has an intransitive motion subschema. However, it is marginal, still being type-restricted, and notably different in form since DIR has become strongly dispreferred. A search for went my/our/her/his/our/their way in COCA, for example yielded fifty-five hits, all without DIR, e.g.: (48)

Ignoring her thanks, he went his way (2006 Stroud, The Golom’s Way [COCA])

This shows that Goldberg’s statement (1995: 199) ‘none of the lexical items involved entails motion’ is not correct (unless lack of DIR is the key here). However, compared with found in the same contexts, which yielded seven hundred and fifty six hits in COCA, most with DIR,16 and with elbowed, which yielded forty-six hits, all with DIR, the motion subschema without DIR is clearly a marginal member of the construction. The productive subschema of the way-construction is a path-creation schema that is no longer restricted to transitive verbs. It has further subschemas: a) a causative path-creation subschema (itself with two sub-subnetworks, one involving obstruction (e.g. force), the other not (e.g. make)), and b) a non-causative subschema, designating ‘iterative path-traversal with accompanying activity’ (e.g. worm, shoot, trash-talk). The second of these is the most productive. In the case of the new accompanying activity subschema of the way-construction, some of the verbs used are relatively frequent (e.g. worm, elbow), others are one-offs or very rare (e.g. shoot, giggle, trash-talk). The new organization is shown in Figure 2.4.

16

Some found X’s way are used figuratively in the sense of ‘managed to succeed’.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

ITR cxn

way-cxn

89

TR cxn

…

way-motion (ITR)

path creation

causative

accompanying activity

obstruction no obstruction

Figure 2.4 Way-patterns at the end of the 19 century th

2.7.5 Growth of the way-construction in a network Goldberg (1995: 218) hypothesizes that the way-construction ‘is a conventionalized amalgam of two constructions: the creation construction and the intransitive motion construction’. This has been confirmed. It means that the way-construction is historically linked with the intransitive and transitive constructions. However, this amalgam is nuanced. Contrary to Israel’s and Goldberg’s hypotheses, go/come intransitive type appears to have been restricted to a niche largely without DIR and therefore to have been relatively marginal to the construction. A network relationship appears to have developed in the seventeenth century independently of the go/come subschema with intransitives that denote manner of motion (ride) and later with intransitives denoting sound and other accompanying factors (plash). This set of intransitives grew exponentially from the OE period on and were used in motion constructions but most of which other than ride do not seem to have been used with way until long after they appear in the textual record (Fanego 2012a). Historically the way-construction is also networked with the fake-object resultative. Indeed Mondorf (2011) argues that the history of the way-construction cannot be fully understood without reference to the competing reflexive -self construction an example of which is cited above in (26b), He talked himself hoarse. Mondorf proposes that the restrictiveness of the self-resultative in PDE that Goldberg cites is in fact the result of competition of the resultative with the way-construction in the seventeenth

90

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

and eighteenth centuries. She suggests that when the way-construction arose it was aligned to the resultative, especially the self-schema. This confirms that it was conceived as primarily transitive. Prior to about 1700 the self-resultative was used in a range of uses that are now obsolescent or at least uncommon, e.g. work/wriggle oneself + DIR. This is the period when the verbs denoting obstruction, like force, came to be used more frequently with way and when manner of motion was beginning to be employed (e.g. worm). In the period 1700–1800 Mondorf shows a statistical cross-over effect with dramatic increases in way- and loss of -self. She also identifies a division of labour such that -self constructions came in the twentieth century to be favored with abstract resultatives (see (49a) with frenzy) while wayconstructions came to be favored with concrete resultatives (see (49b) with the steep bank) (Mondorf 2011: 418, ft. 11): (49)

a. Worked himself into a frenzy and gave himself indigestion. (BNC wridom1) b. . . . he worked his way down the steep bank toward the stream. (FROWN)

A question that deserves study is how and to what extent the way-construction is intertwined and networked with the growth of manner of motion verbs in English that Fanego details, especially those with sound like clink.17 2.7.6 The status of the way-construction on the lexical-grammatical gradient Before we leave the way-construction, it should be mentioned that there is some disagreement concerning where it fits on the lexical-grammatical gradient. For example, Broccias (2012: 741) suggests that the way-construction is ‘on the lexical side of the continuum’ because the sense of motion is retained, even if only figuratively in constructs like could have spelled his way through a psalm (1894 Macaulay, Hist. Eng). However, Israel (1996) refers to it as a grammatical construction and invokes grammaticalization. Mondorf (2011) hypothesizes that it is a case of grammaticalization on grounds that the noun way is bleached and decategorialized, and the phrase POSS way becomes fixed. Gisborne and Patten (2011) argue that the wayconstruction is a case of grammatical constructionalization because it involves increased schematicity, host-class expansion (productivity with extensive analogization), and category strengthening (the construction grows as it acquires subschemas). To these arguments can be added the observation that a partially compositional formula go/take one’s way has become non-compositional in meaning and the most recent subschema (accidental accompaniment of path-making) is the most distinctly procedural, being iterative. While it is not on the far end of the pole of grammatical constructionalization, a close look at its history shows that speakers have interpreted it over time in more and more procedural ways. The debate surrounding the way-

17

We are grateful to Teresa Fanego for this suggestion.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

91

construction provides further evidence for a cline of constructions, ranging from the most contentful to the most procedural.

2.8 Summary and some questions In this chapter we have suggested ways in which a constructional view of grammar can be adapted to account for innovation and change. The key to such adaptation is a usage-based approach that is grounded in the assumption that ‘language as a whole is a network’ (Croft 2007b: 509). Change is therefore complex. Crucially for a usagebased model, what speakers produce are constructs, and therefore what hearers process are constructs. There are clearly associations between constructs and the more general types of constructions that are the subject of work on sign change. But the consequence of the production and processing facts is that the construct is the locus of change. Most changes are constructional changes, i.e. they are conventionalized changes that affect either the form or meaning of an existing node in the network. Only constructionalization leads to the development of a new conventionalized type node in the linguistic network. We have also suggested that in thinking about networks, a distinction should be made between i) individual knowledge, the reflection of an individual mind, and the locus of innovation, ii) knowledge shared by a population of speakers, the locus of coventionalization, and iii) changes to networks that the linguist sees and identifies with language change. In answer to the question raised by Rice (1996) how nodes and links develop (see 2.1), we have proposed that typically there is a series of several micro-steps leading to constructionalization (instantaneous constructionalization is discussed in chapter 4.8). In what follows, we exemplify with a situation in which a hearer creates an innovation, but speakers too may innovate. The first steps are: (a) Innovation. The hearer interprets a construct and analyzes it in a way that does not match the speaker’s analysis. In this process a best fit to some feature of a node that is different from the speaker’s is made. (b) The hearer who has created a tenuous link between the construct and a different part of the constructional network than was intended becomes a speaker and reuses the construct with the new link. At this stage, there is no new micro-construction because there is no conventionalized use. Conventionalization is potentially enabled when: (c) Another hearer goes through a similar (but not necessarily the same) process. Such processes typically involve i) loosely associating an invited inference from a construct with the semantics of a construction that already exists in the constructional network, ii) preferring to use parts of the construct in a particular distributional niche, or iii) repeating part of a construct as a chunk. As a

92

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes result of repeated associations, populations of speakers tacitly agree on a conventional relationship between the original form and a newly analyzed meaning. This leads to mismatch between the morphosyntax of the original construction and the new constructs. Because of the conventionalization we can say a constructional change has occurred, but there is still no new node in the network. If constructionalization later follows one or more constructional changes, we can say they are pre-constructionalization changes.

Constructionalization occurs only (d) When morphosyntactic and semantic neoanalyses arising at step (c) have been shared in population of speakers and a new conventional symbolic unit, hence a new micro-construction (a new type node), has been created. Post-constructionalization, further constructional changes can occur, notably: (e) The type-constructions may be expanded and reorganized as subschemas. Later there may be: (f ) Reduction of form due to frequent token use, or obsolescence of constructiontypes due to decreased use. Thus constructionalization is typically the outcome of language users making not one, but a succession of multiple, new links between constructs and constructions or schemas. It is also the precondition for further series of changes. In section 2.3.3 we suggested that at step (a) best fit is made to an extant feature in the network. An important consequence of the bottom-up approach to the emerging of constructions in individuals discussed in this chapter is that speakers/hearers abstract minimally—only as much as is necessary to capture relevant generalizations. They appear to follow some processing principle such as ‘Be as detailed as you can while at the same time being as abstract as you must’. In many cases analogical thinking is involved in this abstraction. The neoanalyses that bring about conventionalized constructional changes or constructionalizations are small-step abrupt changes. If they have exemplars, they are analogizations (which are themselves a type of neoanalysis). It remains to be determined how far the territory of a network extends (Rice’s question (a)), but it is clear that it extends beyond inheritance to relational links, including polysemous links, and to constructions that are regularly used as variants, e.g. ditransitives and the prepositional construction (see 2.4.2). A tentative hypothesis to be tested is that it may extend to any construction types with which some aspect of form or of meaning is shared. Evidence of reorganization of subschemas demonstrates that the answer to Rice’s question (b) whether elements can move closer and further apart is positive, as demonstrated by the way-construction.

A Usage-Based Approach to Sign Change

93

While the interpretation presented in this chapter of how new nodes in a network may be understood from the perspective of change, particularly of how they grow or become obsolescent, has answered several questions, it may have raised others about our perspective on sign change and on the larger architecture of grammar. We draw attention to two of these questions here. Although we have spoken of ‘best fit’, ‘closeness’ and ‘distance’ in a network and of ‘families’ of constructions, we recognize that these notions are intuitive and metaphorical and will have raised questions. As a heuristic we have assumed that ‘best fit’ and ‘closeness’ can be measured by degree of match between features of form and meaning—the closer the match between all features, and the fewer the variants, the better the fit. For example, a bit of shows a closer fit to a lot of with respect to form than a lot of shows to a great deal of, because the latter is preferred with an adjective, while the former is dispreferred with an adjective. Semantically in PDE a lot of and a great deal of show a closer fit to each other than to a bit of, because the latter concerns small size, while the former concern large size. Pragmatically a lot of and a bit of are closer to each other than a bit of is to a shred of because the latter has negative polarity and is preferred with positively oriented nominal heads, whereas the former are polarity neutral (for historical detail see chapter 3.3.5). But all are members of a family of measure quantifiers because they are used to express amount. Notions such as these need to be refined with reference to synchronic (perhaps neurological) as well as historical research. A related question pertains to the level at which matches are made. Booij (2010: 93) has suggested that language-users may sometimes match to general schemas rather than to individual exemplars. Indeed Israel (1996: 222) suggested that the chief mechanism in the development of the new subschema that we have called ‘accompaniment’ was highly productive analogization to the abstract pattern of the wayconstruction. However, more specific verbs expressing means (e.g. elbow, worm) seem to be more plausible direct exemplars since they account for the fact that the expansion pertains to manner of motion, and at later periods, most particularly to sound. It seems plausible that schemas, being abstract, could serve as models. Whether this is indeed so historically remains to be explored with fine-grained corpus data. In the next chapter we develop an account of grammatical constructionalization and the steps that lead up to and follow from it, drawing on the usage model developed in this chapter.

3 Grammatical Constructionalization 3.1 Introduction In this and the next chapter, we discuss changes that result in constructions that are primarily procedural in function (this chapter) or primarily contentful (chapter 4). We draw on aspects of work in grammaticalization on the one hand and lexicalization on the other since these have been two especially influential threads of research in recent decades, and we seek to show how they can be partially rethought and embraced in terms of a constructional approach. Given the architecture of construction grammar, we do not restrict ourselves to topics that have been traditional in work on either grammaticalization or lexicalization, although each chapter begins with relatively well-known views on these topics. Specifically, we show how changes can occur at the schematic level as well as at the substantive level, at either end of the grammatical-lexical gradient. In the grammaticalization literature prior to interest in construction grammar, focus was largely on the development of individual morphemes (‘grams’),1 which are typically simple or ‘atomic’ in structure, and more often than not, specific or ‘substantive’. For example, although they grant that it is a simplification, in their extensive study of cross-linguistic conceptual shifts from lexical to grammatical material, Heine and Kuteva (2002: 7) assume that ‘there is essentially a one-to-one correspondence between source and target’. However, in construction grammar, constructions may be atomic or complex. Therefore, although some changes may involve one-to-one correspondences, such as particular cases of binominal partitive > quantifier, others may not, such as the development of the way-construction. Furthermore, in construction grammar micro-constructions are usually considered to be subtypes of abstract schemas. Typological work on grammaticalization has addressed type-changes such as ITERATIVE > HABITUAL, MIRATIVE > EVIDENTIAL, COMITATIVE > MANNER (see especially Heine and Reh 1984, Heine and Kuteva 2002, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). Here the focus has often been on semantics 1 ‘Gram’ is short for ‘grammatical morpheme’. The term was coined by William Pagliuca according to Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 2).

Grammatical Constructionalization

95

and how individual representatives of the grams with the relevant semantics have developed. From a construction grammar perspective, however, there is interest in how abstract form-meaning schemas themselves change as their members change. Essential to this chapter are several concepts that have already been introduced. They are: (a) The notion of ‘grammar’. As conceptualized in constructional terms, ‘grammar’ refers to the hypothesized linguistic knowledge system and includes not only morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology but also pragmatics, and discourse functions (see chapter 1.1). This means that the range of constructions considered to be instances of grammatical or procedural constructionalization is quite extensive. (b) The distinction between constructionalization and constructional changes, in other words, the steps that lead up to constructionalization (pre-constructionalization) and that follow it (post-constructionalization). Although this resonates with distinctions made in the grammaticalization literature, especially Heine’s (2002) and Diewald’s (2002, 2006) work on contexts for grammaticalization, it pertains to lexical as well as grammatical constructionalization (see chapter 1.5, chapter 4). (c) The notion of gradualness and its intersection with gradience (see chapter 2.6). The concept ‘grammatical/procedural category’ is an ancient one that goes back to distinctions made in European grammars between major lexical classes (nouns, adjectives, verbs), minor grammatical classes (articles, auxiliary verbs), and secondary, largely inflectional, categories (case, tense). Much of the early work on grammaticalization concerned the development of categories such as tense, aspect, modality, and case. These do not have to be expressed by grams (e.g. deictic tense can be expressed by relatively contentful adverbs like today, yesterday, tomorrow, etc.), but if they are, the grams associated with them tend to be highly general in meaning and token frequent in use. Furthermore, they tend to originate in contentful members of major classes. While we do not entirely ignore this set of developments, we are mainly concerned in this chapter with examples of changes in two domains that have been of more recent interest in the grammaticalization literature. One is the development of partitives into quantifiers, not only as the substantive level of particular construction but at the schematic level. The other is the development of the particular type of focus-marking associated with the rise of pseudo-clefts in English (e.g. What/ All I did was go to the store). In both cases we highlight the way in which the schemas as well as particular substantive instances of them develop. Hypotheses that changes in schemas can be construed as having undergone grammaticalization were earlier articulated in Trousdale (2008c), discussing the loss of the impersonal construction in English and its effect on the transitive construction (see chapter 2.5.1.3), and as a strong hypothesis in Rostila (2006):

96

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

the more schematic a construction is, the more grammaticalized it is. Thus, completely schematic constructions like the ditransitive and transitive constructions in English (cf. Goldberg 1995) should represent the most grammaticalized of all constructions. (Rostila 2006: 53)

This is too restrictive. As we will show in chapter 4, some schematic constructions are lexical, notably word-formation schemas. The structure of this chapter is as follows. We start in section 3.2 by elaborating on the two major current approaches to grammaticalization mentioned in chapter 1.6.2: (i) grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency, which we abbreviate as GR, and (ii) grammaticalization as expansion, which we abbreviate as GE. We show that these are not orthogonal, even though they may appear to be so on first thought, and both need to be accounted for within a model of constructional change. In particular we show that many properties of GE are not inconsistent with many of the parameters of grammaticalization identified in Lehmann (1995). GE has a natural affinity with grammatical constructionalization, and provides a framework for discussing patterns of exemplar-matching and analogization associated with expansion and formation of families of constructions in schemas. At the same time, aspects of GR need to be incorporated into a model of grammatical constructionalization since many individual changes involve reductions of various kinds. A constructional approach to directionality is discussed in 3.3 with respect to changes in productivity, schematicity, and compositionality. It is suggested that grammatical constructionalization is associated with expansion of productivity and schematicity but reduction of compositionality. Ways of rethinking certain types of degrammaticalization in terms of constructionalization are suggested in section 3.4. In 3.5 we present a case study, the development of pseudo-clefts. Section 3.6 summarizes.

3.2 Approaches to grammaticalization Hopper and Traugott summarize grammaticalization as a two-pronged branch of linguistics in the following terms (note that ‘constructional’ and ‘constructions’ in the following quotation are not intended in the sense of the present book, but in the pretheoretical sense of constituent and string): (i) a research framework for studying the relationships between lexical, constructional, and grammatical material in language, diachronically and synchronically, both in particular languages and cross-linguistically, and (ii) a term referring to the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions. (Hopper and Traugott 2003: 18)

The research framework of grammaticalization clearly has much in common with the objectives of work developed in the present book. However, we give grammatical and lexical material equal attention. Definition (ii) is formulated in the more traditional of two conceptualizations of grammaticalization that have developed in

Grammatical Constructionalization

97

the last decade, that of grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency (GR), while the definition in (i) is more open-ended and permits conceptualization of grammaticalization in terms of expansion. While recognizing the danger of polarization by distinguishing different traditions, we nevertheless find it instructive to do so when considering how grammaticalization can be rethought in constructionalization terms to note that in research on grammaticalization, although researchers have always been aware of both form and meaning changes, nevertheless often only one of them has been the main focus of attention, while the other has been backgrounded in specific research projects. As we will show below, expansion and reduction are in fact intertwined. In one tradition of work on grammaticalization, focus has been on form and changes from relatively free syntax through morphology to relatively bound inflections (see e.g. Lehmann 1995, Haspelmath 1998, 2004). Examples are like those in (26) in chapter 1.6.2, of which the first two are given here for convenience in (1): (1)

a. Latin cantare habeo ‘sing:INF have:1sg’ > French chanterai ‘sing:FUT:1sg’. b. Old Hungarian világ bele ‘world core/guts:directional’ > világbele ‘into the world’ > világba (inflected N bele > case marker ba).

In Latin cantare habeo varied with habeo cantare; not only was word order variable, a constituent such as an object could intervene between the two words. By hypothesis cantare habeo was a relatively free phrase that, routinized in the order given, underwent the kinds of shift in (2): (2)

non-finite V - finite V > V stem + finite clitic > V stem + future inflection

Likewise vila béle in (1b) was a relatively free phrase that underwent a number of changes, among them the kinds in (3): (3)

N - [relational N (‘guts’) + directional case marker] > N + primary (coalesced) adposition > N + fusional case affix

In both cases the first lexical stem (cant-, vila) underwent little more than phonological changes, whereas the second underwent fairly radical ones over the centuries, including reduction and increased dependency. The stem in these examples remained lexical/contentful and the second element became grammatical/ procedural. Generalizations from particular instances such as are illustrated in (1) and (3) have often been made in formats that attend to the form of the grammaticalizing item. For example, verbal and nominal clines based on form have been proposed such as: (4)

a. lexical verb > auxiliary > clitic > affix (based on Hopper and Traugott 2003: 111) b. relational noun > secondary adposition > primary adposition > agglutinative case affix > fusional case affix (Lehmann 1985: 304)

98

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Lehmann’s example of each part of the cline in (4b) is a relational noun like top entering into a ‘construction’ (to be understood as ‘syntactic constituent’) like on top of NP where it functions as a secondary adposition (see also Hoffmann 2005 on PNP (preposition + NP) constructions). Here on top of expresses ‘an objective meaning’, i.e. is lexical. A primary adposition is a morphologically simple, grammatical expression like of, and an agglutinative one is like the -s genitive. A fusional case affix is one that simultaneously instantiates more than one morphological category, e.g. a Latin case marker like -bus (ablative plural). In the other tradition of grammaticalization research there has been focus on semantic and in some cases pragmatic changes (e.g. Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). Examples include: (5)

a. Latin habe- ‘possess’ > ‘be obliged’ > ‘future’ b. OE scul- ‘owe’ > shall ‘future’

Semantic and discourse-pragmatic paths of change such as (6) have also been proposed for generalizations over examples such as those in (5), e.g.: (6)

obligation > intention > future > purpose (based on Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994: 240)

The clines in (4) and (6) are linguists’ abstract generalizations over multiple examples, languages, groups of speakers, and times (Andersen 2001: 241). They are not hard-wired, nor are they mental processes (although they have sometimes been interpreted as such, cf. Newmeyer 1998: chapter 5, 2001). They are the outcome of cognitive processes that include parsing and analogical thinking. As Kiparsky (2012: 18) points out, proponents of the two views illustrated by (4) and (6) pose different questions and therefore highlight different aspects of grammaticalization. If one seeks to know how form changes, a ‘path’ such as from auxiliary verb to clitic status (e.g. of auxiliary verb will > clitic ’ll) will be of central interest. However, if one seeks to know how meaning changes such a structural shift may be of only secondary interest. Instead, a path such as from volition (will as main verb) to epistemic modality (Boys will be boys) to expression of future (She will win) will be of foremost concern. Cross-cutting the questions about form or meaning have been two opposedseeming models that we will show are in fact largely complementary. One foregrounds increase in dependency and reduction of various formal aspects of the original expression resulting in grammaticalization, the other foregrounds expansion, typically after grammaticalization has set in. Since reconciling these two approaches is fundamental to our approach in this book, we elaborate on the distinction in some detail. Important to the discussion will be i) the degree of attention to changes on two axes that are often referred to as the syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes, and ii) the hypothesis of unidirectionality.

Grammatical Constructionalization

99

The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic axes (see Saussure 1959 [1916]), or selection and combination (Jakobson 1960: 358), is related to distinctions that go back to Greek times between combination and similarity/choice, indexicality (link to items in context) and iconicity (match).2 Although they do not map directly onto these axes, the mechanisms of neoanalysis and analogization, and the processes enabling (i.e. ‘motivating’) them, parsing and analogical thinking, have sufficient similarity to be grouped with them in Table 3.1, which illustrates conceptual axes in work on language change: TABLE 3.1. Conceptual axes for work on language change Domain

Combination

Similarity/choice

Structure

Syntagm Index Neoanalysis Parsing

Paradigm Icon Analogization Analogical thinking

Mechanism Motivation

As axes, the dimensions inevitably interact. If an icon matches or represents something, by default it points to (or ‘indexes’) it (Anttila 2003: 433). Anttila (2003) and Fischer (2007) argue that in fact ‘analogy’, understood as both analogical thinking and the mechanism we call analogization, involves syntagmatic contextual and combinatorial relations as well as paradigmatic matching. Anttila’s metaphor from weaving of ‘warp and woof ’ invokes not only contextual, syntagmatic relations (woof) and selected, paradigmatic relations (warp), but also the formulaic figurative expression warp and woof ‘the underlying structure on which something is built’ (American Heritage Dictionary 2011). The intersection of the two axes is worked out in some detail in Norgård-Srensen, Heltoft, and Schsler (2011) where an approach is developed to grammaticalization and constructions that privileges the paradigmatic axis as a synchronic, stable set of semantic oppositions (p. 109) that result from changes in syntagmatic valency and word order. Work in the framework of the GR approach led to the hypothesis of unidirectionality of grammaticalization, a hypothesis with a history that goes back at least to Kuryłowicz (1975). Extensive discussion can be found in Norde (2009; see also Börjars and Vincent 2011).3 Particularly influential in the development of the hypothesis that there is a predictable directionality to grammaticalization was the cline of changes proposed in Givón (1979: 209). Already mentioned in chapter 2.5.1.3, it is repeated here as (7): 2 Other related pairs concerning semantic change include metonymy and metaphor, semasiological and onomasiological perspectives. 3 Norde’s book presents a number of counterexamples to the unidirectionality hypothesis, some of which will be discussed in 3.4.

100 (7)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes discourse > syntax > morphology > morphophonemics > zero

A more recent formulation, focusing on structural type rather than level of grammar is Dahl’s (2004: 106) cline in (8): (8)

free > periphrastic > affixal > fusional

The development of French chanterai, Hungarian világba, or of English BE gonna are prime examples of changes along this cline. Although claims about directionality have sometimes been understood otherwise (see e.g. papers in Campbell 2001), this observed directionality is not inherent in grammaticalization. As will be discussed below in 3.3.5, we regard directionality as the result of various factors in usage, such as repetition, strategies to ease articulation, etc. (see also Bybee 2010). These processes are used by speakers of all generations. As Bybee (2010: 113) points out, directionality is a puzzle on a view that change occurs as a result of innovations made by individual children and between generations. But it is not a puzzle if the reasons behind the processes in language use (e.g. parsing and analogical thinking by speakers of all ages) are kept in mind. The kind of chunking that these changes evidence arises because the forms are repeatedly used in the same order, whether by children or adults: (‘the principal experience that triggers chunking is repetition’ Bybee 2010: 34), and repeated chunks tend to be reduced phonologically. As will emerge in the next subsections, a strong hypothesis of unidirectionality is most clearly associated with GR approaches to grammaticalization but a weaker one is also associated with GE. In grammatical constructionalization (and, as we will show in the next chapter, in lexical constructionalization), directionality will be of relevance not only to the development of micro-constructions, but also to the larger schemas in which micro-constructions participate. 3.2.1 Grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency The model of grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency is associated particularly with Givón (1979), Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991), Lehmann (1995, 2004), Bybee, Pagliuca, and Perkins (1991), and Haspelmath (2004). Haspelmath (2004: 26) defines grammaticalization in terms of the development of ‘stronger internal dependencies’, and Lehmann says: Grammaticalization of a linguistic sign is a process in which it loses in autonomy by becoming more subject to constraints of the linguistic system. (Lehmann 2004: 155)

The same kind of focus on loss and attrition can also be found in some more semantically-oriented work, e.g.: [Grammaticalization is] an evolution whereby linguistic units lose in semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance. (Heine and Reh 1984: 15)

Grammatical Constructionalization

101

It should be noted that the concept of grammar adopted by many of the founders of the GR approach, with the notable exception of Givón, was modular, relatively narrow, and until recently typically did not embrace such grammatical categories as topic and focus (but see e.g. Shibatani 1991 and recently Lehmann 2008). It also does not include pragmatic markers such as well, moreover, the British English tag innit ‘isn’t it’, clause final but, or other metatextual markers. These are sometimes considered to be on a separate ‘discourse’ level (see e.g. Wischer 2000, Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011). In a construction grammar framework, however, they are part of language and therefore part of a speaker’s constructional knowledge. The most explicit hypothesis to date concerning reduction and increased dependency in grammaticalization is Lehmann’s set of correlated factors, represented in Table 3.2, which is drawn from Lehmann (1995: 164). Most pertain to changes in a linguistic item, with minimal attention to the contexts in which that item is used. It should be noted that the columns that Lehmann labeled ‘weak’ and ‘strong grammaticalization’ refer to scales that are strictly speaking scales of grammaticality, not to change. Many researchers on grammaticalization have assumed that ‘weak grammaticalization’ represents a pre-grammaticalization developmental stage (those identified in Diewald 2002 as ‘critical contexts’, and in Heine 2002 as ‘bridge contexts’). However, Lehmann identifies change with the column labeled ‘process’ (cf. Lehmann 1995: 124). We have therefore modified the title and two of the column labels of his table to reflect these facts.

TABLE 3.2. Correlation of grammaticality parameters (based on Lehmann 1995: 164) Parameter

Weakly grammaticalized Process

(a) Integrity

Bundle of semantic features; possibly polysyllabic (b) Paradigmaticity Item participates loosely in semantic field (c) Paradigmatic Free choice of items acc. variability to communicative intentions (d) Structural Item relates to scope constituent of arbitrary complexity (e) Bondedness Item is independently juxtaposed

Attrition

(f ) Syntagmatic variability

Fixation

Item can be shifted around freely

Strongly grammaticalized

Few semantic features; few segments or monosegmental Paradigmatization Small, tightly integrated paradigm Obligatorification Choice systematically constrained; use largely obligatory Condensation Item modifies word or stem Coalescence

Item is affix or phonological feature of carrier Item occupies fixed slot

102

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Grammaticalizing items are hypothesized to be reduced in structural complexity and to increase in bondedness from left to right, along two intersecting dimensions: paradigmatic choice (a–c) and syntagmatic combination (d–f). As Lehmann points out, in some cases many or all the parameters may be at work in any particular development. An example is the development of BE going to from ‘motion with a purpose’ > BE gonna ‘future’,4 and it is used here to illustrate the parameters: (a) Integrity; loss of meaning (lexical motion is bleached), and of form (e.g. reduction from four syllables in BE going to to three in BE gonna and fewer (rendered orthographically as I’ma, Ima) in some varieties such as African American English (see e.g. Poplack and Tagliamonte 2000; Green 2002: 196). (b) Paradigmaticity; BE going to was recruited into the set of periphrastic auxiliaries; at the time, these were ought to, have to, be to. (c) Paradigmatic variability; BE going to has been shown to be restricted to niches in Quebec English (Torres Cacoullos and Walker 2009). However, constraint on variability is weak—while BE going to appears to be on the ascendency compared to will and shall, it is not yet and may never become the obligatory marker for future (see Leech, Hundt, Mair, and Smith 2009). (d) Structural scope; the string BE going to was originally distributed over two clauses (the first a clause involving motion, the second a purposive headed by to) and subsequently became an auxiliary within a single clause. (e) Bondedness; to has coalesced with going in gonna, disallowing adverbs and prepositional phrases from intervening. (f) Syntagmatic variability; the sequence has been fixed in the auxiliary slot, and, like modals, precedes aspect and passive markers (is going to have been cleaned thoroughly). The majority of Lehmann’s parameters have stood the test of time and are central to most work on grammaticalization. Parameter (a), which evokes bleaching, has been foundational in work dating back to the nineteenth century (e.g. Von der Gabelentz 1901). It evokes loss of semantic meaning. Parameter (f ) underlies much recent work on non-lexical origins of grammaticalization. Although grammaticalization is often thought of in terms of lexical > grammatical change, in his article of 1912 Meillet referred to grammaticalization not only of lexical items but also of the shift from Latin ‘free’ word order to French ‘fixed’ word order (what we now think of as syntacticized subject-oriented word order). Lehmann (2008) explores the way in which contrastive-focus biclausal cleft sentences may become fixed and reduced to monoclausal structures. Building on Lambrecht (1994) he proposes that ‘The most Aspects of the history of BE going to are discussed below in 3.2.2 and in chapter 5.3.4. ‘Future’ here and elsewhere is to be understood as both ‘relative future’ and ‘deictic future’ unless otherwise specified; these uses arose at different times, as is discussed in chapter 5.3.4. 4

Grammatical Constructionalization

103

explicit syntactic strategy of contrastive focus is sentence-clefting’ (Lehmann 2008: 211) and suggests that the dual clause structure may be grammaticalized over time into a monoclausal topic-comment structure (p. 227). Grammaticalization of information structure, he argues, ‘means that pragmatic relations lose their specificity’ (p. 213), complex sentences may be reduced to a simple clause or even a phrase (p. 227). Here as elsewhere the focus of research is on loss, in this case of pragmatic information-structuring. The parameters have proved very useful in operationalizing certain changes, among them degrammaticalization (Norde 2009), but some have also been debated. One parameter has proved to be particularly problematic: (d), the parameter of structural scope. For one, it led Lehmann himself to mistakenly state that nominal gerunds (e.g. John’s constant reading of magazines) developed later in English than the more complex verbal ones (e.g. John’s constantly reading magazines) (1995: 64).5 However, nominal gerunds are attested in OE, while verbal ones begin to appear only in late ME and are not common until EModE (Rissanen 1999: 291–292). On a view of grammaticalization as decrease in scope and increase in dependency, the development of connectives and pragmatic markers seems anomalous because they increase their syntactic as well as semantic scope. Because they are ‘outside’ the core clause, some researchers regard them as outside of grammaticalization, and as instances of pragmaticalization (e.g. Erman and Kotsinas 1993; see also Claridge and Arnovick 2010, Degand and Simon-Vandenbergen 2011, Diewald 2011a, for overviews of the issues and divergent conclusions). But there have been clause-internal scope expansions as well, e.g. the rise of predeterminers like exactly, quite within the determiner construction, so syntactic scope expansion appears to be a historical fact. In any event, since construction grammar is non-modular, and constructions include pragmatic features, the issue is moot from a constructional perspective. ‘Obligatorification’, the process seen as leading to constraints on and loss of paradigmatic variability (c), is another concept that has been debated. Its operation is clear in languages with inflections, since in these languages agreement is usually required, whether between verb and subject, as in English, French, and German or also between modifier and noun, as in French and German. In highly inflected languages like Russian, increase in obligatoriness and morphological paradigmaticity typically coincide. But in others like English where there are few inflections, they may not. In languages like Chinese with no or virtually no inflections neither obligatoriness nor paradigmaticity in the morphological sense can be particularly salient in the language. Obligatorification has also been associated with the syntacticization of subject such as occurred in the Romance languages and English, both of which at earlier stages had word order that was constrained by information-structuring rather 5 As Lehmann says (1995: 64), verbal gerunds are not full clauses, but they are clearly more complex than nominal ones, which in general terms function as nouns.

104

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

than syntax. Recently the notion of obligatorification has been expanded to cover other areas of grammar. For example, building on Lehmann’s observation that ‘[s]omething is obligatory relative to the context’ (Lehmann 1995: 12), Diewald (2011b) argues that a view of grammaticalization as creation of grammar calls for obligatorification to be understood as being a matter of degree and as being not only a structural but also a communicative phenomenon. When communicating, speakers of German have to choose whether to use a member of the category of modal particles, e.g. ja, eben, ruhig, and schon. These particles are primarily pragmatic in function (and very difficult to translate). In conversation they relate the clause in which they appear to a presupposed or pragmatically ‘given’ unit. For example, (9a) presupposes a context in which language learning is being discussed and (9b) negates a prior proposition, such as ‘It won’t happen’ (Diewald and Ferraresi 2008: 79, 84): (9)

a. Deutsch ist eben schwer. ‘German is really difficult’. b. Es wird schon werden. ‘It wíll happen/It will work out all right’.

Diewald proposes that because modal particles in German are highly restricted syntactically (to position after the finite verb), and on a continuum of pragmatic function with a number of other markers such tense, aspect, and case, they are part of grammar and furthermore speakers obligatorily have to choose whether to use one. This obligatoriness is not structurally internal but communicatively external. It derives from the constraint ‘If intention x, then form y’ (Diewald 2011b: 369). This view is consistent with a constructionalist perspective. A recent variant of the GR approach is the proposal by Boye and Harder (2012) that grammatical expressions are ‘ancillary and as such discursively secondary’, while lexical expressions are ‘potentially primary in terms of discourse prominence’ (p. 2). Discourse prominence is defined in terms of potential for being in focus (p. 9).6 From this perspective, grammaticalization is of two types depending on whether the source is lexical or non-lexical. If the source is lexical it ‘consists in ANCILLARIZATION, a CHANGE IN EXISTING DISCOURSE-PROMINENCE CONVENTIONS’ (Boye and Harder 2012: 22; capitals original). But if the source is non-lexical it consists in: CONVENTIONALIZATION OF A DISCURSIVELY SECONDARY MEANING as a property of a new linguistic expression: a linguistic expression – for instance fixed word order – becomes conventionally associated with a secondary meaning that was originally part of a pragmatic total message, but not conventionally associated with any linguistic expression. (Boye and Harder 2012: 17, capitals original) Metalinguistic contrast is excluded, e.g. I didn't say ‘a’, I said ‘the’. Here the appropriateness of the expression is the discursive point. Likewise contrastive focus is excluded on the grounds that paradigmatic properties are invoked (see Boye and Harder 2012: 17, example 35). 6

Grammatical Constructionalization

105

On this view grammaticalization originates in competition for linguistic prominence in the flow of speech. ‘Only losers qualify’, and expressions likely to lose out are those that are used with high frequency relative to their uses with primary status (p. 27). Although this view of grammaticalization suggests ways of addressing several problems, among them how to approach changes without lexical sources, there are several difficulties of which we mention only a few here. One is that it requires a number of traditional grammatical expressions to have dual status, not only pronouns which in some languages have ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ morphology, e.g. French moi (‘I’ strong, stressed) vs. je (‘I’ weak, clitic, unstressed) but also prepositions, question words, and so forth (p. 21) since these are ‘addressable’ in certain discourse contexts, e.g. responses. Another is that this view of grammaticalization is difficult to demonstrate in historical texts, in part because of the discourses available to us. As Boye and Harder themselves say, construction grammar brings a challenge because no sharp distinction is made between lexical and grammatical expressions (p. 34). They define constructionalization as ‘the overarching change into a new whole construction’ (pp. 35–36), without defining ‘whole construction’ and opt for considering constructions to be ‘the frame for the competition that the emerging grammatical word or morpheme is in the process of losing’ (p. 37). As the brief quotations suggest, Boye and Harder take a usage-model stance, but nevertheless much of the argument is made as if linguistic elements conducted discourses on their own and no detailed data analysis is provided. This idealization away from complexities makes dichotomies such as Boye and Harder draw relatively easy to make. Furthermore, it treats the proper domain of the output of the development of grammatical expressions as the ‘word or morpheme’ and not the construction, a position which is not espoused in this book. 3.2.2 Grammaticalization as expansion For the most part, the GR perspective pays little attention to pragmatics (a notable exception is the work of Bybee and her colleagues). But once pragmatics is taken into consideration, the association of grammaticalization with loss becomes questionable, and a ‘loss-and-gain’ model (e.g. Sweetser 1988, Brems 2011) seems more appropriate. In the late 1980s various proposals were put forward to the effect that in the case of grammaticalization, semantic bleaching is accompanied by the coding/‘semanticization’ of pragmatic implicatures. Sweetser (1988) proposed that though the lexical semantics of motion is lost in the development of future uses of go, the future implicated by our experience of time is metaphorically mapped onto events and may be semanticized as the abstract semantics of ‘future’. Crucially, ‘the meaning of the target domain is added to the meaning of the word’ (Sweetser 1988: 400, italics original). At the same conference Traugott (1988) proposed that the implicatures relevant to grammaticalization are usually more akin to metonymy (associated with

106

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

the syntagmatic string), and metaphor is the result of coding of implicatures. Again the emphasis was on increase ‘in the direction of explicit coding of relevance and informativeness that earlier was only covertly implied’ (p. 413). Although they adopt a largely GR approach to morphological fusion, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 5–10) develop a view of grammaticalization that encompasses pragmatics and semantics, metaphorical and metonymic changes. In an early (partial) precursor of a model of GE, they associate grammaticalization with generalization, by which they mean expansion of use and meaning. Generalization of meaning is loss of lexical specificity, in other words, bleaching. From the perspective not of the form and its meaning, but of the contexts in which it occurs, this results in loss of some collocational and other restrictions, hence expanded use. For example, as an auxiliary BE going to has lost the ‘full value’ of movement in space toward a goal (Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994: 3). This is Lehmann’s parameter (a). The ‘bleached’ future may be used in a paradigm and restricted to a fixed slot (Lehmann’s parameters (b) and (f )), but it is no longer constrained collocationally to verbs denoting actions in the way that motion with a purpose is. Sometimes the original lexical/contentful value may be totally lost over time (e.g. deal in a great deal of as a quantifier has lost the meaning of ‘part’), or partially (e.g. a bit (of ) retains the meaning ‘small’, but not of OE bita ‘morsel, bite’ from which bit is derived). Crucially, however, bleaching of lexical meaning is normally associated with increase in grammatical meaning—further evidence of loss-and-gain. The pragmatic implicatures that enabled the grammaticalization have become part of the new semantics, which is now more abstract, procedural rather than lexical. BE going to as an auxiliary is no longer associated with motion with a purpose but as an auxiliary it means future, a lot of as a quantifier no longer means ‘a piece of ’ but as a quantifier it means ‘much’. In both cases, generalization of meaning results in wider use.7 Himmelmann (2004) gathered together various ideas about expansion to construct a model of grammaticalization (and lexicalization, on which see further chapter 4) in which the focus is on expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, and collocational range, usually after grammaticalization has set in, the model which we have given the acronym GE.8 Himmelmann’s focus is on the contexts in which a grammaticalizing item spreads. He restricts grammaticalization to changes involving ‘at least one grammaticalizing element’ (p. 34), and excludes word order, compounding and 7 Counterexamples to the hypothesis that contentful, literal meaning precedes procedural meaning do, however, occur. Hoffmann (2005: 67–71) cites by way of, saying it is not found first in collocations that support literal path meanings, but rather with abstract ones such as ‘by means of ’ (MED provides collocations with ‘alms, reason, gentleness, merchandise’). Only in the later eighteenth century do examples appear that support the concrete, directional meaning ‘on the path of ’ (Hoffmann 2005: 68). 8 One of the earlier proponents of grammaticalization as a primarily morphological process, Kuryłowicz, said ‘Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a grammatical to a more grammatical status’ (Kuryłowicz 1975: 52; bold added).

Grammatical Constructionalization

107

other more abstract types of changes. However, citing Bybee and Dahl (1989) and Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994), he argues that concentrating on the grammaticalizing item alone is misleading, because items never grammaticalize out of context: ‘constructions (elements in context)9 and not individual items are the proper domain of grammaticization’ (Himmelmann 2004: 31). For him ‘grammaticization is essentially a process of context-expansion’ (p. 32). Himmelmann cites examples of the development of the definite article in German. Examples given here are ours: (a) ‘Host-class expansion’: a grammaticalizing form will increase its range of cooccurrence with members of the relevant part of speech (noun, adjective, or verb), e.g. expansion of future BE going to to stative verbs like like, know, want, which were unavailable for the original purpose construction. This kind of expansion leads to new collocations of a sign. (b) ‘Syntactic expansion’: extension to more syntactic contexts, e.g. of future BE going to to raising constructions (e.g. There is going to be an election), or of the comparative measure phrase as long as (e.g. This plank is as long as that one) to the left periphery of the clause where it is used as a temporal connective (e.g. Hold it in place as long as it is needed). This kind of expansion leads to new (morpho)syntactic configurations of signs. (c) ‘Semantic-pragmatic expansion’: a grammaticalizing form will develop new heterosemies,10 (two or more meanings or functions that are historically related, see 2.4.1), e.g. the temporal connective as long as came to be used as a conditional (e.g. As long as you leave by noon you will get there in time). Of these three types of expansion, ‘semantic-pragmatic context expansion is the core defining feature of grammaticization processes’ (Himmelmann 2004: 33). In his view all three types cooccur in grammaticalization (Himmelmann 2004: 33). In our view, and as will be illustrated below, some semantic-pragmatic expansion usually precedes grammatical constructionalization, and host-class expansion may do so to a small extent. (Morpho)syntactic expansion accompanies grammatical constructionalization (cf. the pairing of formnew with meaningnew). However, all types of expansion may continue after constructionalization, most especially host-class and syntactic expansion. Since Himmelmann regards grammaticalization as expansion in syntagmatic contexts of host-classes, and of syntactic and semantic/pragmatic properties, the directionality he is concerned with is not toward reduction of the signal or toward increased dependency or obligatoriness, but toward expansion of contexts. Host-class expansion is collocational expansion. Syntactic expansion involves increase in available syntactic uses. The example of as long as illustrates expansion from an Note this is not a construction grammar use of ‘construction’. As discussed in chapter 2.4.1, ‘heterosemy’ is a term for two or more meanings or functions that are historically related. 9

10

108

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

adposition specifying an NP to a subordinator specifying a clause. It is a case of syntactic (as well as semantic) scope expansion and supports suggestions that the unidirectionality of scope-reduction (Lehmann’s parameter (d) in Table 3.2) needs to be rethought. From a constructional view on change there is no problem if an adverb or preposition is used as a subordinator. Given that pragmatics is an essential element in construction grammar, inclusion of the development of pragmatic markers (well, I think), German modal particles (doch, ja), and other expressions the grammatical status of which has been questioned in restrictive theories of grammar is likewise non-problematic. Currently they are widely accepted as instances of grammaticalization on the grounds that their function is procedural, cuing connectivity and interaction management (see e.g. Brinton 2008a, Diewald 2011b). Such acceptance requires, however, a broad definition of grammar. Another kind of extension is seen when multiple different nodes are created from one source. Rather than unidirectionality what we find here is multidirectionality, a phenomenon known in the grammaticalization literature as ‘polygrammaticalization’ (Craig 1991, Robert 2005). Craig points to the development in Rama, a Chibchan language of Nicaragua, of the verb bang ‘go’ into goal/purpose markers in the argument structure domain and into progressive, desiderative, etc. in the tense-aspect-modality domain. Multi-directional changes resulting in reflexes of a source construction in more than one structural domain is illustrated less dramatically in section 3.2.3 immediately below by the development of beside into a preposition, subordinator and pragmatic marker, with eventual divergence into beside and besides. The network model should prove particularly conducive to study of changes of this type leading to links with and creation of multiple different nodes from one source. The GE approach allows for reduction and increase in dependency but sees them as a function of the kind of grammatical category that is being developed (and as the outcome of ease of signal articulation). In some domains such as case and tense, grammaticalization may involve increase in dependency, whereas in the domain of connectives and pragmatic markers, grammaticalization may involve decrease in syntactic dependency. A definition of grammaticalization from this perspective is: Grammaticalization is the change whereby in certain linguistic contexts speakers use parts of a construction11 with a grammatical function. Over time the resulting grammatical item may become more grammatical by acquiring more grammatical functions and expanding its hostclasses. (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 99)

3.2.3 The interconnectedness of the GR and GE approaches The two views of grammaticalization as increased reduction and dependency (GR) and as expansion (GE) might appear on first encounter to be in opposition with 11

Again, ‘construction’ is here used in the pre-theoretical sense of string, constituent.

Grammatical Constructionalization

109

respect to directionality. For example, Kiparsky (2012) proposes that unidirectionality can be accounted for in terms of a principled theory of analogy as optimization and regularization based in UG. He concludes that on this view unidirectionality is ‘exceptionless’ (p. 49); apparent counter-examples are exemplar-based. All the same, the GR and GE approaches are largely complementary, because, like the form and meaning approaches Kiparsky (2012) identifies, they answer different questions. Most proponents of GR ask primarily about development of morphosyntactic form, therefore coalescence, fusion, and increased dependency are foregrounded. A change from auxiliary verb to clitic such as will ‘intend’ > will (‘future’) > ’ll, or has (‘perfect’) > ’s involves reduction of the signal and increased dependency, morphologically on the host, and syntactically in terms of constraints—cliticized auxiliaries do not appear in yes-no questions, or as responses, for example: (10)

a. b. c. d.

I’ll be leaving soon. Q. *’ll you be leaving soon? A. *I’ll. She’s left. Q. *’s she left? A. *She’s.

By contrast, GE asks questions not only about changes in an item but also about how grammaticalization occurs in context, and often after grammaticalization has set in. Many aspects of GE follow from GR factors. For example, collocational type-expansion is the logical outcome of Lehmann’s parameters of integrity, paradigmaticity, and paradigmatic variability. If we focus not on reduction but on the consequences of that reduction, we can expect that there will be increase in hostclasses: a form that is reduced semantically and has paradigmatic functions will also be used more token frequently and in more contexts. It will also be available for a larger range of syntactic uses, and therefore its syntactic contexts may expand. There are, however, some areas in which GR and GE predict different outcomes of grammaticalization. Most pertain to Lehmann’s parameter d) of structural scope which, as mentioned above, has proved problematic independent of GE. In the case of changes from clause-internal adverb (e.g. after all) or of adverbial clauses (e.g. as you say, as I think) to various kinds of pragmatic marker functions there is often a change in meaning from contentful to procedural (sometimes involving reduced segments and bonding), followed by recruitment to clause periphery position as a pragmatic marker (expansion of syntactic scope). One of these functions may be to mark the speaker’s metatextual evaluation of the relationship of the upcoming clause to what has been said before. We call this ‘discourse particle function’ (see Fischer 2006). Subcategories of discourse particles include those that connect back anaphorically and also point forward cataphorically, like inferential then, a class that Schiffrin (1987) and Fraser (1988 and since) identify as ‘discourse markers’. Others are pragmatic comment clauses, e.g. I think (Brinton 2008a). Use as a discourse particle is not the logical outcome of condensation, though it is related to expanded use. In these cases

110

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

form is typically reduced through freezing and/or coalescence early on. After recruitment to discourse particle function there is often prosodic differentiation from the original source (see Dehé and Wichmann 2010 on sentence-initial I think in different functions in PDE, and Wichmann, Simon-Vandenbergen, and Aijmer 2010 on of course). This is consistent with findings that higher-frequency expressions are shorter in duration and prosodically different from low frequency homonyms (Gahl 2008). Beside(s) provides a historical example. In OE as now, side was a noun designating a body part, and by extension, the long surface of an object (OED side II.4). Originally used with a number of prepositions in phrases like be/on his sidan ‘at his side’, it came to be fixed as a preposition (11a) and adverb besiden/beside(s) ‘aside, at the side, nearby’ (11b): (11)

a. Seth wuneda on ana munte beside paradise. Seth lived on a mountain next-to paradise (a1200 Annot Cld.OT 421 [MED paradis(e) 1.a; Rissanen 2004: 158]) b. Arthur teh bi-side; and said to iveres . . . Arthur turned aside and said to followers (c1300 Layamon’s Brut, Otho C.13, 12982 [MED beside(s) 3a; Rissanen 2004: 161])

This is a standard case of recruitment of a lexical noun designating a body part to an abstract function (see Heine and Kuteva 2002). Its development is an example of change in Lehmann’s parameter a), integrity, in this case loss of concrete spatial meaning. It is also a standard case of increased dependency and reduction. Be ‘by’ was selected from a set of prepositions including on, æt ‘at’, fram ‘from’, þurh ‘through’, and coalesced with the noun side (Rissanen 2004); this is a change of the type typical of Lehmann’s parameter e), bondedness. However, in ME the adverb beside, and especially the extended form besides (with adverbial -es, as in dæges ‘daily’, niedes ‘necessarily’, backwards, see Kastovsky 1992: 137),12 underwent further changes, all of them associated with GE. Beside(s) was extended to mean ‘in addition’ (12), an example of Himmelmann’s semantic-pragmatic expansion: (12) He deprived him of a portion of his kingdom, and he deprived him of a part of his kingdom, and hym to pay a great summe of mony besides. him to pay a great sum of money in-addition (1564 N. Haward tr. F. Eutropius, Briefe Chron. vi. 52 [OED])

12

assessed assessed

The -s in an adverbial marker originates in the genitive inflection found on many adverbs in English, e.g. backwards. The division of labour between preposition beside and pragmatic marker besides is a relatively recent development.

Grammatical Constructionalization

111

In EModE the preposition beside(s) came to be used to introduce a finite thatcomplement clause meaning ‘although’ (13). This use was largely restricted to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but the OED cites a nineteenth-century example, and several appear in COHA including (13c) from the end of the twentieth century: (13)

a. Sire besides that I am your Graces subject Sir although I am your Grace’s subject . . . your Grace hath also shewyd so largely . . . your Grace has also shown so generously bounteousnes and liberalite anenst me that . . . bounty and liberality toward me that . . . (1517 Tunstall, Letter [HC; Rissanen 2004: 165])

and servant and servant your your

b. for beside that he died in charity with all, for although he died in poor-house nevertheless never heard that he once reflected on never heard that he once said-anything-bad about his prosecutors. his prosecutors (1763 Ordinary’s Account, OA17630824 [OBP])

I I

c. What is so significant about Burle Marx's contribution—besides that it has lasted 60 years—is the way it has made an impact on all scales. (1990 Parfit, Smithsonian 21 [COHA]) In EModE beside(s) was also used as a clause-initial discourse particle meaning ‘furthermore, in addition to what was said before, but not central to the argument’: (14)

a. In terms of choice I am not solely led By nice direction of a maiden’s eyes; Besides, the lottery of my destiny Bars me the right of voluntary choosing. ‘In terms of choice (of a husband) I am not led solely by the dainty guidance of a maiden’s eyes; in addition, the lottery of my destiny bars me the right to choose voluntarily’. (1600 Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice II.i.15 [LION: Shakespeare]) b. and when he lookt for Money to pay his Reckoning, he miss'd his Money, but could not be positive that she took it: and besides, several Persons who were present, declared they did not see her touch him. (1698 Trial of Eleanor Watson, t16980223-7 [OBP])

Use of the preposition as a subordinator as in (13) and of the adverb as a discourse particle as in (14) are examples of syntactic expansion: the new uses have scope

112

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

syntactically as well as semantically over the whole clause. They are therefore counterexamples to Lehmann’s scope reduction (parameter (d)). They are, however, examples of Himmelmann’s syntactic and semantic-pragmatic expansions. In our view, syntactic and semantic-pragmatic scope expansion follow from the discourse function uses to which a construction like besides was recruited. This is also true of the many other metatextual markers the history of which has been investigated, such as in fact (Traugott and Dasher 2002), and of course (Lewis 2003). In sum, practitioners of both the GR and GE perspectives view directionality as an essential characteristic of grammaticalization, but differ as to whether or not it is limited to traditional structural aspects of ‘core’ grammar, and on how sub-types of Lehmann’s grammaticalization parameters are to be interpreted (in earlier work often out of context). In the GR model, directionality is usually hypothesized to be ‘uni’-directionality. It is associated primarily with the semantic and signal reductions that accompany changes known as lexical > grammatical, less abstract > more abstract, less dependent > more dependent. For some practitioners of GR unidirectionality is a key factor, so much so that Haspelmath (1999) suggested that the unidirectionality of grammaticalization is ‘irreversible’. In the GE model, directionality is primarily a hypothesis about expansion to more collocations and to more syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic options; it answers the question how changes affect use in contexts (and how contexts enable change). The kinds of expansion that Himmelmann has identified and that are foundational to a GE perspective on grammatical change are the kinds of changes that we find in grammatical constructionalization. However, from the perspective of the GE model, a problem for unidirectionality is that a particular instance of grammaticalization or grammatical constructionalization typically does not expand indefinitely, despite Kiparsky’s (2012: 49) hypothesis that unidirectionality is exceptionless, given a principled theory of analogy as optimization. In the ‘life-cycle’ of grammatical constructions, very robust grammatical markers that have undergone expansions of various sorts may become restricted and peripheral or may even disappear (see chapter 2.5.1). The conclusion must be that expansion is characteristic of grammatical constructionalization and of subsequent constructional changes, at least until such time as a new competing construction comes into being, but not necessarily after that.

3.3 A constructional approach to directionality As discussed in chapter 1.4.2, constructional approaches have sometimes conceptualized change and directionality in terms of changes in schematicity, productivity, and compositionality (including analyzability). For example, Trousdale (e.g. 2008a, 2010, 2012a) proposed that in grammatical constructionalization the first two increase, and the third decreases. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it turns out that increase in productivity and schematicity are characteristic of constructionalization in general,

Grammatical Constructionalization

113

not specifically of grammatical constructionalization, but there are differences in the types of schematicity and productivity involved. The three-way set of distinctions is more elaborate than has sometimes been made in the construction grammar literature, where schematicity and compositionality alone may be invoked. For example, Gisborne and Patten (2011: 96) and Langacker (2011: 82) identify schematicity with loss of contentful meaning, i.e. increase in abstractness, and what Langacker calls representations of ‘mental operations’, but do not distinguish productivity. Gisborne and Patten (2011: 97) also identify hostclass expansion with increased schematicity and say that increasingly productive constructions ‘sanction more instances’ (p. 98). Barðdal (2008) distinguishes productivity and schematicity, while at the same time showing that they are closely related. She correlates productivity with high type-construction frequency and high degree of schematicity (i.e. complex schematic hierarchies), low productivity with low type frequency and high degree of specificity (p. 172). While we also distinguish productivity and schematicity, we do not do so in exactly the same way as Barðdal, in part because we consider a wide set of grammatical developments, whereas she is concerned with argument structure only, in part because we seek to develop an approach that takes fuller account of context and Himmelmann’s (2004) three expansion-types. In what follows we discuss changes in productivity as expansion both of construction-types (type-frequency) and of constructs (token-frequency) (3.3.1), and changes in schematicity as both shift toward procedural function and changes in schemas and their makeup (3.3.2). In 3.3.3 we discuss decrease in compositionality as reduction of transparency in the link between meaning and form, recognizing that analyzability may still persist in cases where compositionality decreases. We go on to suggest how factors addressed in GR and GE approaches to grammaticalization intertwine and therefore may be reconciled in a constructional framework (3.3.4), and finally suggest possible reasons (‘motivations’) for directionality in change (3.3.5). Our examples will be primarily from the development of the binominal quantifiers and of BE going to ‘future’. In our view the division of labour that we propose between increase in productivity and in schematicity, together with decreased compositionality, provides a framework that is conducive to unifying aspects of the GR and GE approaches to grammaticalization. Briefly, GE approaches to grammaticalization are consistent with grammatical constructionalization conceptualized as the development of procedural function together with increase in productivity, collocational range, and schematicity. GR approaches to grammaticalization are consistent with grammatical constructionalization conceptualized as decrease in compositionality. 3.3.1 Increase in productivity A typical statement in usage-based approaches to change is that ‘new constructions come into being and spread by gradually increasing their frequency of use over time’

114

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(Bybee and McClelland 2005: 387). In the grammaticalization literature, increase in token frequency resulting from increase in type-frequency and collocational range has been privileged (see e.g. Bybee 2003), in part because it explains reduction. However, in construction grammar, type frequency receives particular attention, in part because it accounts for expansion of resources available in a schema. For example, Goldberg (1995) observes that the way-construction is a relatively low token frequency item, but has a large number of collocates. She hypothesizes that ‘[t]his provides support for the idea that productivity has little to do with token frequency and more with type frequency’ (1995: 137). While the issues of type and token productivity are intertwined, they need to be kept apart, as Barðdal (2008) emphasizes. For example, in considering the productivity of the development of binominal expressions into quantifiers, we can address (a) expansion of the number of micro-construction-types, e.g. the addition of a scrap of, a shred of to the inventory or constructicon, (b) the nature of their collocates, and (c) how token frequently they are used. As we will see in the next section, change in schematicity, for example, the way the quantifiers are grouped into subschemas, is not necessarily directly correlated with any of the dimensions of productivity mentioned here. It has been customary in a tradition that goes back to classical times to think of grammatical classes as closed or at any rate small. This view is, however, challenged when grammaticality is thought of in terms of procedural function. The set of quantifiers in English, for example, is relatively large. It includes not only the traditional ones such as all, many, much, some, few, but also a little, and more recently binominal ones like a lot of, a heap of, and a bit of. While the obviously atomic, monomorphemic ones are older, the more complex ones are more recent, and their structure, at least when they came into being, was consistent with the increasingly periphrastic nature of English. Over time, with frequent token use they have become reduced phonologically (see allota mentioned in chapter 1.5.3). Likewise, the ‘core’ modals make up a small set, but others have been and are continuing to be added to the inventory over time (Krug 2000). Structurally the newer ‘quasimodals’ are consistent with periphrastic structure, among them BE going to, in some varieties BE fixing to, and, showing evidence of a different adjectival structural source, (had) better (Denison and Cort 2010). While the categories of quantifiers and auxiliaries are relatively small, Hoffmann (2005) shows that the category of complex prepositions (e.g. in front of, in terms of ) is quite large—well over a hundred, many of them recent. In all cases, the grammatical categories are somewhat open-ended and new construction-types can develop. Because procedural constructions are relational and relatively abstract, they may, over time, come to be used with a larger number of collocates. This is what Himmelmann (2004) has called host-class expansion. Barðdal (2008: 31) considers this to be the addition of a new type to the list of specific constructions (e.g. Vs, Ns) to a schema, and evidence for the ‘extensibility’ of the schema. In most cases of

Grammatical Constructionalization

115

grammaticalization it has been noted that change starts in a relatively small corner of the system and there is an increase in the distribution of the grammaticalizing item over time, along a path that is minimally ‘obtrusive’ (De Smet 2012: 607). For example, the BE going to future was initially used with activity verbs (make a noose, read, lay out), like the motion with a purpose patterns were, and only later was it extended to verbs increasingly less likely to be compatible with motion, e.g. statives such as like, be. In the case of the binominal quantifiers a lot/lots of, they were initially (in the eighteenth century) used mainly with concrete hosts like the original partitives, but these typically referred to groups (people) (see (15a)) or were plural, in other words, they were used in contexts that themselves implied quantity. Examples of quantifier use with abstract mass collocates appear in the data only in the nineteenth century, mainly in routine expressions like lots of room, or lots of time (15b). (15)

a. There was a lot of people round him. (1822 Trial of William Corbett et al., t18220911-157 [OBP]) b. The keeper will have lots of time to get round by the ford. (1857 Hughes, Tom Brown’s Schooldays [CL 2])

Abstract nouns appear more frequently after mid-nineteenth century in CLMETEV: (16)

a. He had battled with it like a man, and had lots of fine Utopian ideas about the perfectibility of mankind. (1857 Hughes, Tom Brown’s Schooldays [CL 2]) b. she will not pester me with a lot of nonsensical cant. (1885 Blind, Tarantella [CL 3]) c. He is only young, with a lot of power. (1895 Meredith, The Amazing Marriage [CL 3])

Later still, it occurs with gerund nominals: (17)

the horses needed a lot of driving. (1901 Malet, The History of Sir Richard Calmady [CL 3])

These type-expansion changes are post-constructionalization constructional changes. We show in 3.3.2 below that type-construction productivity is related to schematicity. With regard to token frequency, diachronic corpora show it can be very variable, but by hypothesis it is motivated by the source meaning and distribution and by the host-class collocates. An example is provided by Brems (2011: 207; 2012: 213) in her discussion of the growth of token frequency of heap(s) and lot(s) used in NP of NP strings from 1100 through 1920. Synchronically she finds in the COBUILD corpus the distribution of quantifier use of the same four size nouns in Figure 3.1 (with a subset of other size nouns included in Brems’s study):

116

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

bunches 0%

heap 34%

| 50%

heaps

load

bunch

loads

lot/lots

67%

75%

88%

93%

100%

|

Figure 3.1 Quantifier use of some size nouns in COBUILD (based on Brems 2012: 211)

The synchronic percentages in Figure 3.1 show gradience and reflect differential gradual diachronic changes. Important to notice here is that lot and lots are used as quantifiers almost one hundred per cent of the time, but in the case of the other size nouns there is a significant difference between singular and plural tokens regarding quantifier use. In the case of bunch, the plural does not occur with the quantifier meaning at all in COBUILD, whereas 88.4% of the uses of bunch are quantifier uses (e.g. bunch of kids/lies). In the case of heaps, Brems (2012) hypothesizes that it originally meant ‘constellation, pile’ and unlike singular heap and the others did not have a partitive use. 3.3.2 Increase in schematicity13 In thinking about increase in schematicity two issues need to be kept apart. One is that over time micro-constructions may become more schematic or abstract, as they participate in and become ‘better’ members of abstract schemas. The other is that schemas themselves may expand, i.e. may come to have more members, as discussed in the previous subsection and as was shown to be the case with the way-construction in chapter 2.7. Barðdal (2008: 31) refers to the integration of micro-constructions into a schema as the ‘extensibility’ of the schema. We briefly illustrate these two types of increase in schematicity and then turn to the question of how productivity and schematicity interact. As is well known in the grammaticalization literature, lexical items undergoing grammaticalization are typically decategorized. Using our example of the development of partitives into quantifiers, the partitive construction itself involves decategorization of the measure noun. For example, lot and bit are used as a (pseudo) partitive only when they are part of an indefinite NP and serve as the head of a complex indefinite NP. The nouns lot and bit are decategorized because they are not free to occur with the definite article. They are even further decategorized when they are used as part of the quantifier construction because they are now used as modifier and can no longer undergo inversion. For example, in (18), which is an early example of bit used as head of a complex NP, bit is a free noun in its original contentful meaning ‘bite’. It has not been decategorized: (18) þis appyl a bete þerof þou take. this apple a bite therof thou take ‘Take a bite of this apple’ (c1475 Ludus C [MED bite n.; Traugott 2008b: 29]) 13

Parts of the discussion of the development of BE going to in this section draw on Traugott (Forthcoming).

Grammatical Constructionalization

117

Use of bit in a partitive is more schematic in the sense of abstract than it is as a free noun. Its use in the quantifier construction is even more schematic because the collocates of quantifiers are freer, and because quantification is scalar. Over time, as a bit/lot of come to be more firmly entrenched as quantifiers they come to be used in other scalar constructions, such as the degree modifier construction and can be used as adverbs modifying adjectives (a bit/lot better). A detailed account of the development of a bit/lot of as quantifiers and then degree modifiers would show that over the last two centuries they were gradually assigned more prototypical features of the schemas into which they have been recruited. In that sense they become subject to the ‘regularities’ of the schema (Barðdal 2008: 22). But as we saw in the previous section, other size nouns like heap(s) that were recruited as quantifiers, are not as entrenched (see Figure 3.1). Nevertheless, most have been subject to increased schematicity (exceptions are bunches, and some others like piece which are used only as partitives, not as quantifiers). BE going to also provides an example of the increasing schematization of a microconstruction. When it was first used in the early seventeenth century as a tense marker, examples suggest that it meant relative tense ‘be about to’ (Garrett 2012). This is discussed further in chapter 5.3.4. Here we consider the issue of when it was constructionalized. In the data all but two examples that are plausibly temporal have animate subjects prior to the eighteenth century, suggesting that expansion to the new use was along a path of minimal difference (see De Smet 2012). The two seventeenth-century examples with inanimate subjects, a distribution that was not available for constructs expressing motion with a purpose, are: (19)

a. Bel. Where’s all his money? Orl. ‘Tis put ouer by exchange: his doublet was going to be translated (‘removed’), but for me. (1630 Thomas Dekker, The Honest Whore, Part II [LION; Garrett 2012: 70]) b. You hear that there is money yet left, and it is going to be layd out in Rattels . . . or some such like commodities. (1647 Field and Fletcher, The Honest Man’s Fortune [LION; Garrett 2012: 70])

Both examples are early, suggesting that at this period a few speakers may have partially aligned BE going to with the auxiliary schema. However, absence of further such examples shows that use with inanimates was not conventionalized until the early eighteenth century, when a number of new uses appear in the textual record. Among them are: (20)

a. deposed . . . that he thought the whole Front of the House was going to fall (1716 Trial of John Love et al., t17160906-2 [OBP]) b. I am afraid there is going to be such a calm among us, that . . . (1725 Odingsells, The Bath Unmask’d [LION: English Prose Drama])

118

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(20a) is an example of raising. This syntactic context had been available for older auxiliaries well before the time that BE going to was used as a temporal, as (21) shows: (21)

a. But there can be nothyng more conuenient than by litle and litle to trayne and exercise them in spekyng of latyne. ‘But there can be nothing more appropriate than little by little training and exercising them in speaking Latin’. (1531 Elyot, The Governor [HC ceeduc1a]) b. I truste there shal be no fawte fownd yn me. I trust there shall be no fault found in me ‘I trust that there will be no fault found in me’. (b1553 Mowntayne, Autobiography [HC ceauto1])

Since constructionalization requires change in form as well as meaning, it appears that BE going to was not constructionalized until the eighteenth century, when it was used with inanimate subjects and in raising constructions such as (20). How entrenched as an auxiliary it became can be seen from examples like (22) where it collocates with the motion verb go: (22)

I never saw him after, till I was going to go out. (1759 Trial of Terence Shortney et al., t17571207-40 [OBP])

As new construction-types (micro-constructions) such as a bit/lot of or BE going to come into being and coexist with older ones, the schemas in which they participate are expanded. In some cases speakers may generalize and abstract over the individual types and develop schemas. We have seen this in the case of the development of the way-construction. In chapter 2.7 we hypothesized that precursors of this construction were constructs of the intransitive and transitive constructions. During the seventeenth century, however, it appears that an independent way-construction emerged and over time subschemas developed. This is a case of a schema developing and becoming more schematic over time in that it acquires substructures. The idea is that once enough construction types represent a category that category can serve as an abstract pattern that is an attractor for micro-construction types and may expand as a consequence. It is ‘extensible’ (Barðdal 2008: 31) and therefore productive at the schema level. This is an interpretation from a historical perspective of how ‘itemspecific knowledge’ can over time come to be linked to ‘generalized or schematic knowledge’ about them (Goldberg 2006: 98). In the remainder of this subsection, we discuss some of the ways in which increases in productivity (see 3.3.1 above) are linked to increases in schematicity. Various comments appear in the literature on both grammaticalization and historical construction grammar that the same mechanisms are at work throughout expansion and that increases in productivity are relatively smooth. For example, according to Bybee (2010: 95) ‘the mechanism behind productivity is item-specific analogy’. This might

Grammatical Constructionalization

119

suggest that analogy is equally likely to occur with high and low type frequency constructions. On the other hand Barðdal (2008) proposes that analogy as a mechanism of change (‘analogization’) is associated with low type frequency provided this low type frequency is accompanied by semantic coherence and high token frequency. This is because ‘[c]onstructions high in type frequency need not show a high degree of semantic coherence in order to be productive, while constructions low in type frequency must show a high degree of semantic coherence in order to be productive’ (p. 9). Individual constructions with high token frequency are likely to be entrenched, and hence available as models. Barðdal treats low and high frequency as poles on a productivity cline, as represented in Figure 3.2: Type Frequency High

Open Schema Different Degrees of Productivity

Analogy

Semantic Coherence Low

High

Figure 3.2 The productivity cline (based on Barðdal 2008: 38, 172)

A representation such as Figure 3.2 suggests that even if the mechanisms behind low and high productivity are not the same, nevertheless the transitions from low to high productivity will be smooth. A similar impression can be derived from the quotation at the beginning of 3.3.1: ‘new constructions come into being and spread by gradually increasing their frequency of use over time’ (Bybee and McClelland 2005: 387). However, Petré (2012) argues that such smoothness is not always in evidence. He suggests that sometimes attraction into an extant highly productive schema may be discontinuous with earlier developments from the perspective of an idealized smooth cline. His example is the development of OE becum- ‘become’ and especially weax‘grow, wax’ into copulas in early ME:

120

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(23)

a. þonne weaxeð hraðe feldes blostman. then grow fast field.GEN flowers ‘then the flowers of the field grow quickly’. (c925 Meters of Boethius A6 [DOEC; Petré 2012: 28]) b. For loue of vs his wonges waxeþ þunne. For love of us his cheeks become lean ‘His cheeks become lean for the love of us’. (c1325 Lytel wotyt (Hrl 2253) [MED thinne; Petré 2012: 28])

Petré says there was a sudden explosion of type-frequency after these verbs were constructionalized as copulas, as in (23b). The ‘bumpy’ and sudden growth of weaxin ME is not wholly unlike that of the way-construction once it was constructionalized (see chapter 2.7.4), although the reasons for the lack of smoothness are very different. In the case of becum- and weax-, Petré suggests they were attracted into an extant copula construction. In the case of the way-construction, it became highly type-productive only after it became an independent construction associated with a schema of its own.14 The network approach to change outlined in chapter 2 helps us to understand why the trajectory of change (the ‘actualization’, see De Smet 2012) is not always smooth. Networks consist not only of micro-construction nodes, but also of groupings of nodes (schemas and subschemas with nodes within them). In constructionalization a new node is created. Although the step may be small, nevertheless it is discontinuous. If at the time of constructionalization a micro-construction is attracted into a schema it may become a less marginal member and more prototypical member of that schema, as did BE going to. Once this occurs, the micro-construction is subject to the characteristics of the schema and use with a dramatically increased number of new collocates is expected. We hypothesize that, whatever the path to an entrenched schema, the result of schematization can be rapid expansion of the constructiontypes and that therefore directionality of expansion will not always show a smooth trajectory—in fact it is unlikely to do so; it is more likely in fact to show S-curve-like expansion (see Denison 2003 for discussion of various types of S-curves). This is one of several ways in which work on constructionalization is significantly different from work on grammaticalization. In the latter the focus is usually on development in a single dimension. In the former it is on development in two dimensions: specific micro-constructions and schemas. 3.3.3 Decrease in compositionality While grammatical constructionalization, at least in its early stages prior to any loss of members, is characterized by increased productivity and schematicity, it is also 14 Another possibility for the bumpy nature of the development of weax- could be the paucity of texts in the crucial period (Martin Hilpert p.c.).

Grammatical Constructionalization

121

characterized by decrease in compositionality. In historical construction grammar terms, decrease in compositionality is decrease in the transparency of the match between meaning of the parts and the form/syntax. Note that this does not suggest that subparts of a schema will be totally unanalyzable. Furthermore, decrease in compositionality typically arises when there is mismatch between the older morphosyntax and a newer meaning. At this point there has been no morphosyntactic neoanalysis, although some routinizing of syntactic order may be incipient, but there have been some pragmatic changes and possibly some semanticization and an idiomatic expression has been created. When constructionalization occurs, over time the mismatch may be ‘resolved’ as the new construction becomes aligned to a schema. The new construction may become more analyzable (as a member of the new schema), but is often non-compositional semantically. In the case of the development of partitive a bit of or a lot of into a quantifier, the lexical meaning originally matched the syntax. Bit and lot were heads of the syntactic string [NP1 [of NP2]]. However, as quantifiers, they modify the second NP, so the semantic structure is [Modifier N] (see chapter 1.5.1) At the point of semantic neoanalysis, the micro-construction is internally non-compositional (i.e. an idiomatic phrase is created). The distinction emerges when considering the potential mismatch between meaning and form, as in (24) (example (17) in chapter 1, repeated for convenience): (24)

Mrs. Furnish at St. James’s has ordered Lots of Fans, and China, and India Pictures to be set by for her, ‘till she can borrow Mony to pay for ‘em. (1708 Baker, Fine Lady Airs [LION: English Prose Drama])

Understood as a referring to ‘parcels’ of fans, lots is substantive and has compositional lexical features. Understood as ‘many’ fans, lots does not have conventional contentful lexical features of quantity and is less compositional semantically. From a historical perspective the original partitive micro-construction underwent decrease in compositionality when the new quantifier meaning was conventionalized (a constructional change). When a lot of was constructionalized as a quantifier, however, a new, more abstract compositionality resulted and the mismatch was ‘resolved’ in the sense that both meaning and syntax now matched as modifier-head (a lossand-gain phenomenon). The morphosyntactic neoanalysis served to reestablish a degree of ‘analyzability’ between the new micro-construction, and the grammatical schema of which it has become a part, specifically between the micro-construction lots of and the English quantifier schema. However, this new binominal quantifier is idiomatic, and the meaning is not strictly derivable from the parts. Once established, the new micro-construction became available for the language user to deploy in a potentially wider range of contexts (the kinds of expansion we have discussed at length earlier in this chapter), thus increasing its frequency of use.

122

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Decrease in compositionality is gradient, as Hay (2001, 2002) and Bybee and McClelland (2005: 393) show. Bybee and McClelland illustrate the gradience with the degree of opacity of the historical prefix pre- in word-formation, as exemplified by president, prediction, and predecease. It is most opaque in president, least in predecease, and this difference in opacity is reflected in different stress assignment. In the grammatical domain there are well-known differences in degree and rate of coalescence and fusion (discussed in Bybee 2003, 2010 and elsewhere), depending on the frequency of the combination or of the host that results from repetition and routinization, e.g. I’m is more frequent than you’re and she’s, a phenomenon that correlates with the frequency of the host pronouns. Loss of segments and of morphological compositionality is likewise variable dependent on the frequency of the host, so it is likely that the development of the French future from Latin cantare habeo initially occurred with higher frequency verbs. Here there is initial loss of the phrasal compositionality between dependent (V-infinitive) and head (habeo) due to chunking, then neoanalysis resulting in the interpretation of -r- not as an infinitive marker but as part of the future marker, and reduction of habeo to -ai, resulting in a new, compositional -rai ‘1st person future’. As Lehmann (2002) notes, crucially for grammaticalization, the verb itself was not neoanalyzed. This is captured in grammatical constructionalization terms by reference to the exponents of the original possessive/obligation structure being recruited to the schema [[Vi - Xj] $ [SEMi Futurej]]. Once entrenchment has occurred frequency of use may have an effect on form. Repeated sequences tend to become phonologically more integrated and reduced (see BE going to > BE gonna [ɡ@n@]). Among routines that are often greatly reduced is I don’t know (see Bybee and Scheibman 1999, Bybee 2006 on reduction to > I dunno [aId̪@no]). Pichler (2013) discusses how in conversational data collected in Berwick on Tweed, in the far north-east of England, the negative clitic particle -n’t in don’t know may either be reduced to [ʔ] or deleted altogether giving forms like [do?θIŋk], [dʊθIŋk], and do may be reduced to [@] and occasionally, the initial fricative of think is omitted altogether, resulting in forms like [doʔĩŋk] or [d@ʔIŋk]. Pichler says a local variant, written I divn’t knaa, is expressed by tokens such as [dIvn̩nɜ̃:] or [tIfn̩ˈnɐ]. Langacker (2011) regards grammatical elements as having secondary status, and hence needing to be allocated fewer processing resources (see also Boye and Harder 2012). This, in Langacker’s view, leads to reduction: ‘Reducing the allocation of time, attention, and bandwidth brings about not just the compressed manifestation of semantic and phonological content but its actual erosion’ (2011: 83). Likewise, the cumulative effects of entrenchment help explain why constructions generally (not only grammatical ones) show high degrees of fixation (Goldberg 2006).

Grammatical Constructionalization

123

3.3.4 The interweaving of GR and GE factors in constructionalization and constructional change The discussion of expansion above and especially of the constructional increases in productivity and schematicity, and in decreased compositionality associated with and following on from grammatical constructionalization suggests that the approaches are far from orthogonal. Rather, the factors considered intertwine in change. Constructionalization is preceded by a series of small-step changes such as increase in the salience of pragmatic inferences and routinization in certain contexts, which may lead to chunking and eventually to mismatches between form and meaning. These shifts may in turn lead to decrease in compositionality at the level of the existing micro-construction. These are constructional changes that may feed into the constructionalization of a new micro-construction, i.e. formnew-meaningnew pairing. The resolution of a mismatch allows full sanction by the grammatical schema, thus the new micro-construction is compositional with respect to its sanctioning schema. However, relational links between elements of the micro-construction are lost. Grammatical constructionalization is followed by increases in the type-productivity of the new micro-construction. This in turn affects the productivity of the schema. Typically the source construction continues to be used, even in the same contexts. These kinds of changes in grammatical constructionalization are in many cases ‘the other side of the coin’ of the processes Lehmann identified from a GR perspective (see Table 3.2) (recall that both Lehmann’s processes and the characteristics of the constructional changes are gradient). The GR perspective focuses on what happens internally within an item or group of items, while the GE perspective focuses on what happens externally, especially on productivity. It turns the spotlight on changes in their range (collocates), and in the degree of abstractness of the cluster or family of items (schematicity). The points of contact are summarized in Table 3.3: TABLE 3.3. Compatibility of the development of a new grammatical microconstruction with Lehmann’s processes of grammaticalization* Characteristics of the development of a grammatical micro-construction

Lehmann’s processes of grammaticalization

Mismatch, decrease in semantic compositionality Initial chunking and routinization Attraction to set Decrease in internal formal compositionality

Attrition of semantic features (a) Fixation (f) Paradigmaticization (b) Coalescence and attrition of phonology (e, a) Obligatorification (c)

Increased entrenchment

* The relevant parameter in Table 3.2 is cited after each process. Lehmann’s process ‘condensation’ (parameter (d)) is not included for reasons discussed in section 3.2.1 above.

124

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Table 3.3 strikingly shows that the reductions and expansions that we have called GR and GE are interwoven. The first two characteristics (mismatch and chunking) are largely associated with pre-grammatical constructionalization; the third (attraction to a set) is concomitant with grammatical constructionalization (if a relevant set pre-exists), and the fourth and fifth (decrease in internal formal compositionality and increased entrenchment) are largely associated with post-grammatical constructionalization. In other words, some semantic attrition and loss of compositionality and morphosyntactic fixing may precede the types of expansion associated with constructionalization, while decrease of formal compositionality that is associated with reduction of the signal and increased entrenchment that is associated with obligatorification, follow after expansion. Furthermore, the outcome of attrition of semantic features is the possibility for use in a larger set of contexts, hence host-class expansion and syntactic expansion of the type Himmelmann (2004) discussed. 3.3.5 Possible motivations for directionality of change So far we have only hinted at the motivations or possible reasons for directionality in change. In work on grammaticalization, especially among proponents of the GR view of change, a question of primary interest has been why directionality toward procedural function is far more common than in the reverse direction toward contentful function (Börjars and Vincent 2011 summarizes a number of responses to this question). Initial answers to this question appealed to the competing factors ‘be clear’ (to the addressee) and ‘be quick’, a proposal that goes back at least to von der Gabelentz (1901) and that was elaborated on especially in the late 1970s and the 1980s by Langacker (1977), Slobin (1977), and Du Bois (1985). A problem with this proposal is that the two principles could potentially cancel each other out and it does not account for the asymmetry between change from lexical toward grammatical expression (frequently attested) and grammatical toward lexical expressions (infrequently attested). Haspelmath proposed that the asymmetry can be accounted for by speakers’ desire to be different and ‘expressive’ (see also Lehmann 1985) or ‘extravagant’ (Haspelmath 1999). Haspelmath (1999: 1043) defines ‘extravagance’ as ‘speakers’ use of unusually explicit formulations in order to attract attention’ and be socially successful (p. 1057). This motivates use of a periphrasis over an older non-periphrastic expression. Haspelmath goes on to suggest that the short-term advantage to the innovator of using a new, more explicit expression disappears as the innovation is adopted by others and becomes devalued through repetition and over-use. This repetition and overuse (what we call token/construct frequency) account for the asymmetry is attractive in that it is designed to show how the ‘macro-effect of grammaticalization’ arises out of ‘the speech behavior of individuals at the micro-level’ (p. 1063). Speakers are envisaged as strategically engaged, though not necessarily conscious of the choices they make—Haspelmath

Grammatical Constructionalization

125

draws on Keller’s (1994) position regarding the ‘invisible hand’ which posits that change is the unintended byproduct of ordinary language use. There are, however, problems with Haspelmath’s proposal. While a newly constructionalized procedural construction is clearly different from its source, and is an addition to the inventory, it is not an obvious device for making oneself noticed or even for being expressive. Consider the development of the way-construction discussed in 2.7. If the hypothesis is correct that a large number of constructs had been available by the 1600s with way in them, but not requiring many of the characteristics that crystallized in the construction [[SUBJi [VTRcausative POSSi way] (DIR)] $ [‘SEMi cause to traverse a path’]] hypothesized in chapter 2.7.3, the development of this construction with causative verbs like make, take (which had been available earlier) is hardly noticeable. The development of the new subschema with noncausative accompanying action exemplified by use of plash or shoot might have been more noticeable when this new subschema came into being, but this expansion of the construction seems more like experimenting with ‘difference’ than with ‘extravagance’. Admitting that use of the term ‘extravagant’ might itself be extravagant, Haspelmath (2000: 796) says that: The crucial point is that for my theory to work, extravagant expressions and their social interpretation need not be striking—they merely need to be discernible, and there must be an asymmetry (no ‘antiextravagant behavior’).

He does not, however, state what the optimal group of discerners might be. For change to occur they must be discerners who would adopt the new expression. Presumably they would be young adults who use language for purposes of social identification and signaling their difference.15 The quotation from Haspelmath appears to presuppose that the change is in some way a linguistic marker of which there is social awareness. This would make a change more noticeable in the community than Keller’s invisible hand approach—that Haspelmath draws on—might allow. Some changes certainly do receive attention (and not only from purists), in other words, they are not only above the level of awareness but they can also be the topic of metalinguistic comment. For example, use of a lot of was criticized in the nineteenth century as too colloquial to be suitable for written genres, and The American Heritage Dictionary, 2011, 5th ed., still says quantifier a lot of is colloquial. Another example is the development at the end of the eighteenth century of the progressive passive as in the house was being built (earlier progressive passives were of the type the house was building). The progressive passive was regarded as ‘unharmonious’, ‘clumsy’, ‘a philological coxcombry’, and ‘illogical, 15 It should be noted, however, that the sources in CLMETEV that illustrate the new subschema are actually by older men, and both are letters. See examples (46a) and (46b) in chapter 2.7.4.

126

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

confusing, inaccurate, unidiomatic’ (White 1871: 334–363, cited by Mossé 1938: 157). But many other changes do not evoke comment; for example, we are unaware of any attention being drawn to the development of quantifiers like a bit of, a shred of. A further problem with Haspelmath’s proposal is that it presupposes that grammaticalization involves change from lexical to grammatical status (Haspelmath 1999: 1057). It is therefore not designed to account for grammaticalization with non- or minimally lexical sources. More importantly, it relies heavily on the notion that new expressions leading to grammaticalization are periphrastic (Haspelmath 2000), but this is true only if periphrasis is a system-wide grammatical strategy in the language of the time, as it was in the case of the development of the BE going to future. Furthermore, it does not address the fact that only certain kinds of expressions are likely to be used with procedural function—those that have appropriate semantics/ pragmatics, and are relatively content-less: ‘It is not just the fact of repetition that is important, but in addition, what is repeated, that determines the universal paths’ (Bybee 2003: 622; italics original). We assume that the main reason for directionality, whether expansion or reduction, is repetition. Repetition is also central for a new node in a network acquiring unit status (i.e. becoming entrenched in the sense of Langacker 1987). Another likely motivation for directionality that has been proposed in the literature on grammaticalization is analogical thinking, the necessary process behind analogization (see Bybee’s 2010: 95 comment already cited in section 3.3.2 above: ‘the mechanism behind productivity is item-specific analogy’). In earlier chapters, especially 2.3.3 we distinguished two types of analogy: analogization (analogy as a mechanism), and analogical thinking (analogy as a motivation). As Fischer (2007, 2010) argues, insufficient attention has been paid to analogical thinking in work on grammaticalization. Given that grammatical constructionalization highlights patterns of productivity and the changing role of schemas, exemplar based analogical thinking must be privileged as a likely motivation for change. But to what extent it should be constrained is not agreed on. Fischer appears to promote a relatively unconstrained ‘loose fit’ approach. For example, she argues that BE going to was analogized to the set of periphrastic auxiliaries that already existed at the time (early seventeenth century). These were have to, be to, ought to, and, with low frequency, need to and dare to. Since none had -ing and none meant ‘future’ the analogy is not exact to either form or meaning. We suggested in chapter 2.3.3 that a deal of may have been an exemplar for later binominal partitive > quantifier changes. Here again there is no close match since a deal of favored the adjective great; however, since examples without an adjective are attested and meaning is close, the fit here is relatively tight. On the other pole of constraining analogical thinking is Brems’s (2011: 263–269) proposal that a bit of was probably not the direct model for other small-size noun > quantifier changes like a whiff/smidgen/scrap/jot/shred of, because it was associated with neutral polarity in the nineteenth century, the period when a whiff/smidgen/

Grammatical Constructionalization

127

scrap/jot/shred of were becoming conventionalized as quantifiers. Unlike a bit of, a whiff/smidgen of were associated with positive polarity and a scrap/shred/jot of with negative polarity. The number of attestations in her data base is, however, very small, so the conclusion is only tentative. Brems grants, however, that there may have been indirect modeling. Specifically, she suggests that a bit of may have ‘exercised some analogical pull’ along with more distant general small size quantifiers like few (p. 266). Discussion of analogical models is often couched in words like ‘exercise analogical pull’ or ‘attractor set’ as if a construction rather than processes used by users of the language motivate change. From a usage point of view such terms are best translated as being shorthands for the intersection of analogical thinking and speakers’ preference for a pattern that for some reason, presumably social, has become salient for a group of speakers, perhaps because of frequency of repetition. Factors that appear relevant are a ‘best fit’ model, conceptualized as a medium ground between Fischer’s ‘loose fit’ and Brems’s ‘tight fit’, and relative proximity in the network (see chapter 2).

3.4 Rethinking degrammaticalization in terms of constructionalization An important question for any hypothesis is how testable it is and how robust its predictions are. There has therefore been considerable discussion of whether there are legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality in grammaticalization as represented by the types of changes we have labeled GR, and if so, how frequently they occur, and how to interpret them (see especially Campbell 2001, Norde 2009).16 Here we discuss certain aspects of degrammaticalization that can be rethought in terms of constructional change and constructionalization. The type of counterexample to unidirectionality most frequently cited is ‘reversal’ of grammaticalization. While some strong claims were made in the late 1990s that counterexamples to unidirectionality are not attested, or if they are, they are so rare and marginal as not to be significant (e.g. Haspelmath 1999),17 evidence has been growing that there are some (Haspelmath 2004, and especially Norde 2009), as might be expected given that human language is subject to chance and manipulation for various kinds of social purposes. All the counterexamples challenge the GR perspective of grammaticalization. Ramat (1992, 2001) proposed that up, ante, ism, and 16 Newmeyer (1998: 263) claimed that any counterexample ‘is sufficient to refute unidirectionality’. This appears to assume that language operates on scientific laws like those of physics, rather than on those of social interaction. In our view it is too restrictive a view of grammar, since language is a social phenomenon, and therefore subject to changes that are not always predictable. 17 In his account of constraint-based ‘spontaneous changes’, Kiparsky (2012) proposes that ‘grammaticalization is strictly unidirectional’, as cited in section 3.2.3. He goes on to say: ‘in other words, . . . there is no such thing as degrammaticalization’ (Kiparsky 2012: 37). Any attested instance of degrammaticalization is, according to his hypothesis, a case of exemplar-based analogy, i.e. of an idiosyncratic, language-specific change based on a model.

128

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

similar formations of verbs and nouns from grammatical and derivational morphemes are counterexamples to grammaticalization, not only on grounds of a perceived shift from grammatical to substantive (lexical) status, but also, especially in the case of examples like ism, because of the shift from bound to non-bound status (see also Janda 2001). Ramat considered such examples to be cases of degrammaticalization that may result in lexicalization (we return to this issue in chapter 4). In her book, Degrammaticalization, Norde (2009) uses Lehmann’s parameters in Table 3.2 to assess putative examples of degrammaticalization and argues that degrammaticalization is best viewed as a cluster of phenomena: Degrammaticalization is a composite change whereby a gram in a specific context gains in autonomy or substance on more than one linguistic level (semantics, morphology, syntax, or phonology). (Norde 2009: 120)

Genuine changes of the type discussed under the rubric of degrammaticalization often lack one important characteristic of grammaticalization (and constructionalization): they tend to involve one change, not a series of changes, and to be isolated: they do not participate in sets of similar changes or serve as models for additional changes. Norde distinguishes several types of degrammaticalization: of these deinflectionalization and debonding are of direct relevance to grammatical constructionalization. They will be discussed in turn. 3.4.1 Deinflectionalization Deinflectionalization is the reversal of ‘secondary grammaticalization’ (the shift from an already grammaticalized element to a more grammatical one, Givón 1991: 305). It is typically the reversal of a shift from inflection to clitic, which means that the degrammaticalizing morpheme remains bound and continues to have grammatical functions. These may, however, not be as semantically abstract as they were when associated with the inflection it once was. Deinflectionalization is deparadigmatization in Lehmann’s terms, i.e. morphological patterns in a particular slot are dismantled in a reversal of the expected outcomes of Lehmann’s parameters (b) and (f) (see section 3.2.1). One of the most cited examples is the shift in English and Continental Scandinavian from the genitive singular suffix -s into a clitic possessive attached to a full NP. Although these developments have several similarities, they are nevertheless different in detail (see e.g. Norde 2002, 2006).18 In English an originally masculine and neuter genitive inflection associated in OE with a subclass of nominals, -s is usually thought to have been neoanalyzed as a modifier of a full NP and as a determiner. This is an instance of enrichment of grammatical function. Even though this change is usually referred to with reference to -s genitive, it is in fact an example

18

Andersen (2008: 21) includes this development under ‘regrammations’.

Grammatical Constructionalization

129

of a type change (inflection > clitic), not of token reversal because -s was not used with all nouns as a class until the clitic arose. An example of genitive inflection from OE is: (25) Eanflæd Edwines dohtor cinges Eanflæd Edwin.GEN daughter king.GEN ‘Eanflæd King Edwin’s daughter’ (Chron C 626.1 [DOEC]) Here there is internal agreement. By ME internal NP agreement had been lost, and of came to replace -s in many instances, as indicated by the free translation of (25). -s was, however, retained to mark an animate possessive as in: (26) Hii clupede edwyne þe kinges sone of norþhomberlond. They called Edwin the king.GEN son of Northumberland ‘They called Edwin, the King of Northumberland’s son’. (c1325(c1300) Glo.Chron.A (Clg A.11 [MED southlond])) During the seventeenth century it came to be used externally to an NP in what is called the ‘group genitive’, and it is now possible even to use it at the right edge of an NP modified by a relative clause (usually with zero relativizer or a free relative),19 e.g.: (27)

The student we were talking about's assignment is now late. (2010 Endley, Linguistic Perspectives on English Grammar [Google; accessed Feb. 2nd 2012])

Given that morphological case was lost in English, the complete loss of -s might have been expected. Its reuse as a clitic is therefore remarkable. It could be considered to be an instance of what Lass (1990, 1997) has called ‘exaptation’ and Greenberg (1991) ‘regrammaticalization’: the reuse of an obsolescing grammatical form with a more functionally useful one. The reasons for the deinflectionalization of -s in both English and Continental Scandinavian are highly debated, but Norde (2002) and Kiparsky (2012) hypothesize that this kind of change is associated with a major systemic change, in this instance loss of case and especially loss of agreement within the NP. While this example is widely cited, Börjars and Vincent (2011: 167) argue that the one-dimensional inflection > clitic analysis is wrongly framed. When it is investigated in more granular detail, it is less obviously a case of degrammaticalization. The changes they identify are: (a) (b) (c) (d)

19

Reduction of the case paradigm to one member with one form -s, NP-internal agreement to NP external agreement, resulting in once-only marking, Reduction in degree of bondedness, Head marking to right edge marking (i.e. uses of the group genitive, where the item at the right edge is not the head of the NP).

For changes in the function and distribution of the English -s clitic, see Rosenbach (2002, 2010).

130

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

They note that (d) tends to be avoided in speech if the right edge is not the head. In other words, expressions such as (27) above are infrequent in contemporary corpora. Denison, Scott, and Börjars (2010) suggest that, based on distributional evidence, the -s may still in fact have many of the properties of an inflection in PDE speech (if so, it has persisted from OE times on). In conversation as represented in BNC, split constructions of the type in (28) are preferred over ones with a clitic at the right edge of the relative as in (27), and are reminiscent of ME and EModE constructs: (28)

We don’t know the gentleman’s name with the tape recorder (BNC FM7 8 [Denison, Scott, and Börjars 2010: 548])

Furthermore, examples like (29), which are reminiscent of OE (25) occur occasionally in PDE speech: (29)

Because he wastes everybody’s else’s time (BNC KGB 54 [Denison, Scott, and Börjars 2010: 555])

Adopting a constructionalist point of view, Trousdale and Norde (2013) assume the rise of the English -s genitive clitic (at least in written language) is a case of deinflectionalization, and argue that it can be said to have become more general in three ways: First, it can now be used with any noun (see Börjars and Vincent’s (a) above). Second, it ceased to be governed by verbs, prepositions or adjectives (e.g. brucan ‘to enjoy’, which governs a genitive object). A third and more important reason why the genitive construction can be said to have become increasingly general is the emergence of the determiner function. Over time, as determiners came into being in English (see e.g. Denison 2006; Davidse, Breban, and Van linden 2008), the -s genitive came to be associated with the highly abstract and schematic ‘primary determiner’ slot (the slot occupied by the articles and demonstratives, cf. the/that hat, the man’s hat, John’s hat). The primary Determiner construction has an identifying function. In ModE it occurs in a slot following predeterminers all, quite, exactly, but preceding postdeterminers, such as several, different, and same (cf. all the/those different ideas). As a primary determiner, the genitive is sanctioned by the macrolevel determiner construction. From a constructional perspective, the rise of the determiner construction in English (and Swedish) involves gradual decategorialization of a range of different elements which begin to converge and to be recategorialized around a core ‘grammatical’ property of nominal grounding (negotiation between speaker and hearer regarding the referent of the nominal), affecting e.g. numerals (OE an ‘one’ > PDE a(n) ‘indefinite article’), and demonstratives (e.g. OE þæt ‘that’). In Swedish definite NPs require the definite (‘weak’) form of the adjective, a formal property that makes the determiner construction more coherent in Swedish than it is in English (Norde 2009). The -s genitive, which is a case of degrammaticalization in the GR approach may therefore be recast as grammatical constructionalization. It is formnew-meaningnew and there is increase in productivity and schematicity.

Grammatical Constructionalization

131

Trousdale and Norde (2013) propose that, in Langacker’s (2005) terms, as various diverse members joined the macro-determiner construction, the latter itself has undergone constructionalization. The determiner construction is now quite heterogeneous, and has become increasingly so every time a new micro-construction has been added, and is therefore highly schematic. In ModE there have been adjective > determiner shifts resulting in new quantifiers (e.g. certain, various) or deictic uses (e.g. old as in my old job = ‘former job’) (see e.g. Breban 2010, Van de Velde 2011). What makes determiner construction roughly coherent (and identifiable as a construction) in English is the functional property of grounding the nominal and the formal property of appearing before the nominal. Most Swedish determiners precede their head as well, with the crucial exception of the suffix of definiteness (as in e.g. kungen ‘the king’, barnet ‘the child’).20 Nevertheless, as Trousdale and Norde (2013) argue, the rise of the -s genitive is not a prototypical case of grammatical constructionalization on the micro-constructional level as there is an increase in compositionality because there is a decrease in bondedness. This is in fact increase in analyzability (see chapter 1.4). When the genitive was still a fusional case suffix, it could not be separated from its nominal or adjectival stem. Moreover it had a phonological impact on the stem: in English, voiceless fricatives became voiced before genitive -es; in Swedish, long vowels were shortened and voiced consonants devoiced before genitive -s (Norde 2009: 168). In those cases, the genitive and its stem were inseparable, and hence the meaning of the whole could only with difficulty be derived from the meaning of the parts. In presentday Swedish and English however, the NP and the enclitically attached genitive are identifiable as two different entities, both morphologically and phonologically. An increase in compositionality on the micro-level is perhaps most evident in Swedish, where GEN can be attached to nouns of any number or gender, and as group genitives become increasingly common, compositionality on this level may be expected to continue to expand. 3.4.2 Debonding Debonding also involves a shift away from affixes to less grammatical forms, but in this case into free morphemes, not clitics. An often-cited example is the development of the affirmative particle ep ‘yes’ in Estonian which earlier was an emphatic clitic. As a result of phonological changes this clitic was reinterpreted as an independent particle (Campbell 1991: 291). Other examples are the shift from the first person plural verbal suffix -muid into a free pronoun ‘we’ in Connemara Irish (Doyle 2002) and the decliticization of the Norwegian infinitival marker å (Faarlund 2007).

20 Note that Swedish has double definiteness when the noun is preceded by an adjective: det söta barnet ‘the sweet child’.

132

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

The debondings are, like grammaticalizations, gradual in the sense that they develop in small steps and in specific contexts. But unlike grammaticalizations, and grammatical constructionalizations, nearly all involve only one, not multiple, steps in the gaining of autonomy or substance by a grammatical item or construction. There are, however, some exceptions. For example, in the Finno-Ugric language Saami the case suffix haga ‘abessive case’ came to be used as a postposition (Nevis 1986). This is an instance of deinflectionalization, but in the Northern dialect the postposition has in a second step come to be used as a free adverb, an instance of debonding. With respect to debonding, the history of Irish muid is debated (see Norde 2009: chapter 6.6), but one plausible account is that of Doyle (2002). He argues that in Early Modern Irish the synthetic -maid (future first person plural) was prosodically similar to the analytic form of verb inflection, and was neoanalyzed as an independent pronoun muid21 in future paradigms in conjunction with the obligatorification of subject pronouns and a general shift toward cliticization of earlier inflections. Muid was then generalized to other verbal paradigms and eventually replaced the earlier analytic first person plural pronoun sinn. From a constructional point of view, at one stage -muid instantiated two constructions (future tense and first person plural). The later free pronoun is different in form and syntactic distribution, but not meaning. If so, the debonding change is a morphological, constructional one. It is not, however, an instance of constructionalization, which requires both form and meaning change. 3.4.3 A caution against projecting original uses from the present 22 The facts that there are some counterexamples to reduction and increased dependency and that particular paths of expansion cannot be predicted, as discussed immediately above, should serve as a cautionary note regarding several kinds of assumptions that appear in the grammaticalization and constructional literature concerning what one can deduce from synchronic variation. One assumption is that variation is dynamic and typically shows ongoing grammaticalization. However, as Pichler and Levey (2011) emphasize, using data on extenders like and that, or something from north-east England, variation may be stable and may not always reflect dynamic structural change or a continuum of grammaticalization as suggested by Cheshire (2007), among many others, for extenders (but in different dialects of English).23 A second, and related, assumption that sometimes appears in the literature is that synchronic variability is a direct result of grammaticalization. This assumption is often based on Bybee, Pagliuca, and Perkins’ (1991) findings that the 21 Norde (2009: 204, ft. 24) notes that Doyle finds no morphological significance in the spelling difference. 22 Parts of this section are based on Trousdale (2012b). 23 They do, however, find instability in social variables.

Grammatical Constructionalization

133

most token frequent and most bonded future grams are the oldest, and their hypothesis that earlier history can be reconstructed by looking at token frequency and degree of bonding. More radically, it is sometimes assumed that evolution of language can be reconstructed on principles of GR (Heine and Kuteva 2007). A related assumption in the construction grammar literature is that the most frequently used, most entrenched construction is the oldest. For example, Langacker (2008: 226) hypothesizes that ‘the most entrenched and most readily activated unit will generally be the original structure, which can then be recognized as the category prototype’. In a similar vein Jurafsky (1996: 572) proposes that synchronic radial categories may be constructed by the linguist to represent ‘the archaeology of a morpheme’s meaning, modeling the historical relations that may act as associative links’. While it may often be the case that synchronic centers reflect earlier meanings, the assumptions here must be taken with caution. Both Langacker (2008) and Jurafsky (1996) are concerned primarily with meaning rather than with form-meaning pairings. Since configurations of sets change, and since meaning and form typically do not change at the same time, one cannot assume a necessarily close relationship between a highly entrenched unit at a particular moment in time and its original structure. Such a relationship needs to be posited as a hypothesis to be tested in each case. Consider the history of what with, which semantically expresses reason, and syntactically is an absolute adjunct. It is therefore semantically and syntactically on the grammatical end of the continuum. Pragmatically it is evaluative, often negative. In COCA it introduces non-finite clauses with gerunds (30a, b), and occasionally with past participles (30c). It may also introduce coordinated NPs (30a, b). (30)

a. What with the boyfriend coming back and all the confusion of the paramedics and neighbours, they couldn’t find anything (2003 Becker, Great American [COCA]) b. At first, Uncle Martin hemmed and hawed. Finally, he said that, what with him still missing Aunt Nonny so much and Grace so far away, the only thing that could really make him feel better was . . . (2003 Trobaugh, Good Housekeeping [COCA]) c. Winnie was easy to see, what with the cars all gone. What with her standing in the middle of the new white concrete, looking betrayed. (2002 Reed, The Sleeping Woman [COCA])

Gerunds are the most frequent collocates of what with in COCA, usually with different logical subjects, as in (30a). Assuming that the different structures arise historically at different times, on a GR approach in which complex clauses are expected to be reduced and their organization tightened, one might assume that the original construction was a gerund like (30a) with different subject clauses, or a participle type (these usually have different

134

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

subjects), and that same subject clauses developed later with coordinated NPs last. This is because non-finite and matrix clauses with same (controlled) subjects are considered to have a ‘stronger syntactic bond’ (Kortmann 1991: 5) than is the case where the matrix and the non-finite clauses have different subjects. However, the history of the construction is very different (Trousdale 2012b). Trousdale shows that the NP + NP construction is the earliest, being attested at the very beginning of the ME period. Initially several prepositions can be found following what, including for and through as well as with. However, what with came to be the favored expression. This is a case of specialization (Hopper 1991) and an example of Lehmann’s parameter c), reduction of paradigmatic variability,24 as in (31): (31) So what with hepe and what with crok, so what with pruning hook and what with crook wine. Thei make her maister ofte They make their master often win ‘So by hook or by crook, they make it so their master often wins’. (c1393 Gower, Confessio Amantis, 5.2872 [MED]) A few examples with gerunds appear in the eighteenth century in CLMETEV. Most have no overt subject but the implied subject is the same as that of the main clause, as in (32): (32)

The corporal had already, – what with cutting off the ends of my uncle Toby's spouts – hacking and chiseling up the sides of his leaden gutters, – melting down his pewter shaving-bason, – and going at last, like Lewis the Fourteenth, on to the top of the church, for spare ends, &c. – he had that very campaign brought no less than eight new battering cannons, besides three demi-culverins, into the field. (1759–67 Sterne, Tristram Shandy [CL 1])

The only example of different subject in all three parts of the CLMETEV corpus without an overt subject following what with is (33a) from the same text as (32). The structure in (33a) might be an early experiment with different subjects, or might result from priming by the series of what phrases that precede it. All other examples of different subjects have either a possessor (logical subject) modifying the gerund (33b) or a non-modified noun phrase rather than a gerund (3c). Whether or not the subject is co-referential, throughout the eighteenth century what with constructions involve coordination, sometimes without repeated what with (33b).

24 Like many largely fixed expressions it can be used in PDE with an intervening adverb, e.g. what especially with, what all with (cf. in fact and in actual fact, anyway and any which way); others allow nothing (beside, indeed). This has to do with degree of coalescence that has taken place. As anyway shows, spelling as one word is not a reliable cue to these differences.

Grammatical Constructionalization (33)

135

a. Chaste stars! what biting and scratching, and what a racket and a clatter we should make, what with breaking of heads, rapping of knuckles, and hitting of sore places—there would be no such thing as living for us. (1759–67 Sterne, Tristram Shandy [CL 1]) b. but what with the Squire's drinking and swearing, and the young gentleman's extravagance, and her daughter's pride and quarrelling, she is almost tired out of her life. (1783 Kilner, Life and Perambulations of a Mouse [CL 2]) c. I assure you, what with the load of business, and what with that business being new to me, I could scarcely have commanded ten minutes to have spoken to you. (1780–96 Burns, Letters [CL 2])

No examples with past participle were found in CLMETEV, which suggests they are a recent development. In the later part of the nineteenth century the construction began to be expanded. Uses of gerunds with nominals expressing different subject begin to appear as in (34). (34)

a. when she heard from my aunt how the poor things lived in uncleanness and filth, and how, what with many being strangers coming by sea, and others being serfs fled from home, they were a nameless, masterless sort, . . . she devised a fresh foundation to be added to the hospital. (1870 Yonge, The Caged Lion [CL 3]) b. he always was an ingenious fellow, and what with Rosy helping him with his plans and figures, and so on, he got an extra good idea of mechanics. (1857 Cummins, Mabel Vaughan [COHA])

These are constructional changes since there is no change of meaning. Later examples from COHA show a further constructional change, the development in the twentieth century of pronominal logical subjects in verbal gerunds (him in (35); also in (30b), and her in (30c) above): (35) I’ve always thought, what with him fussing about ‘grammar,’ and ‘truth,’ he’d be a hard man to live with. (1922 Deland, The Vehement Flame [COHA]) In sum, the history of the what with construction has been one of gradual expansion after the initial stage of restriction to with. The expansion is first from what with NP + NP > what with XP + XP (where XP covers both NP and gerunds), and finally to what with XP (XP). It appears that the presence of an overt subject has increased over time (Trousdale 2012b). The history is a case of host-class and syntactic expansion from bare nominals to gerunds, and loosening of syntactic constraints as the coordination pattern becomes optional. The current prevalence of what with constructions with different-subject gerunds is a late development and does not reflect the original structure.

136

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

3.5 A case study: the development of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts As indicated in 3.2. although grammaticalization is usually thought of in terms of lexical > grammatical change, in his foundational article Meillet (1958[1912]) referred to grammaticalization of non-lexical elements. Interest in grammaticalization without lexical sources has been high recently. One line of work is Diessel’s (e.g. 1999, 2012) research pointing out that lexical sources for demonstratives are difficult if not impossible to find; demonstratives may have arisen independently and may in fact need to be categorized separately from lexical and grammatical items. Another is Lehmann’s (2008) discussion of the interface between information structure and syntax, with focus on contrastive topic and focus. Another line of research is represented by Norgård-Srensen, Heltoft, and Schsler’s (2011) suggestion that word order patterns are equivalent to morphological systems (p. 43) and interact with (in our terminology are networked with) illocutionary frames, modality, and textual cohesion (p. 230). Other works that highlight ways in which changes in discourse organization interact with and may affect syntactic structures include Hinterhölzl and Petrova (2009) and Meurman-Solin, López-Couso, and Los (2012). Our purpose in this section is to illustrate aspects of grammatical constructionalization discussed earlier in this chapter with the extended example of the development of two information-structuring micro-constructions: ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts (the latter are usually known as WHAT-clefts).25 They are subtypes of what Patten (2010, 2012) characterizes in PDE as a larger family of construction-types including ITclefts and TH-clefts with forms like The thing/the one that V BE X. Here we sketch the development of pseudo-clefts like: All/What I did/said was X, All that/What happened was X, with particular attention to ALL- and WHAT-clefts with do (see Traugott 2008c, 2010b on which the following case study is based). Traditional analyses of pseudo-clefts consider that the chief function of pseudo-clefts is information-structuring (specifically focus-marking). Several key characteristics in Modern English are identified including (see Prince 1978, Higgins 1979, Collins 1991, Lambrecht 2001, Ward, Birner, and Huddleston 2002, among many others): (a) Two clauses, one of which is a relative; the relative may be fused (cf. What I did was party), or reduced (cf. All I did was party). (b) Some part of the construction (typically the relative) is given or at least recoverable. (c) The focus constituent (X following the copula) is construed as an exhaustive, exclusive listing.

25

We do not attempt to provide a full account of the development of pseudo-clefts. For example, we do not discuss the development of TH-clefts, and because they do not involve do, we exclude ‘reverse clefts’ of the type A red wool sweater is what I bought (Ward, Birner, and Huddleston 2002: 1414).

Grammatical Constructionalization

137

(d) Do refers to the same event as V in X (i.e. do is a pro-V, cf. What she did was leave), therefore temporality matches across clauses. (e) ALL-clefts are evaluative; they signal that the speaker/writer regards the focus as less than adequate; all 6¼ ‘everything’ and is replaceable by only. Although TH-clefts differ from other pseudo-clefts in having definite (pro)nouns like the thing/the one in subject position, many researchers have assumed that pseudo-clefts form a category: WHAT-clefts, TH-clefts, and, if discussed at all, ALL-clefts. The argument is usually based on the assumption that pseudo-clefts have non-cleft equivalents, from which they are derived. For example, (36b) is thought to be derived from (36a): (36)

a. I went to the river. b. All (that) I did was (to) go to the river.

Allerton (1991) argues that WHAT-pseudo-clefts are characteristic of what he calls the ‘more precise’ way that spoken English is structured in comparison with written language. He suggests that in spoken English do in WHAT-clefts focuses the verb in X (37a), whereas other verbs focus NP in X (37b). His examples include (Allerton 1991: 475): (37)

a. What John did a few days later was readvertise. (clefted version of John readvertised a few days later.) b. What I’d like is a pint of beer. (clefted version of I’d like a pint of beer.)

A derivational analysis assuming that the simple sentence is the base is not consistent with a non-derivational constructional perspective. Nor is it consistent with Lehmann’s (2008) argument that contrastive clefts historically precede simple topic-comment clauses. Patten (2012) reviews various earlier approaches to clefts generally, and IT-clefts in particular, and develops a constructional perspective on clefts positing a non-derived specificational construction with several sub-types. Specificational meaning involves interpreting the copula relation as ‘listing the membership of a set rather than attributing a property to a referent’ (Patten 2012: 57). She points out that definite NPs are ‘especially well-suited to enabling a specificational interpretation’, since the referring expression ‘is understood to provide a complete, exhaustive list of the members which constitute the restricted set’ (Patten 2012: 57). She also argues that despite the fact that pseudo-clefts are members of the specificational schema, nevertheless they do not form a unified category or subschema. Rather, they are individual construction-types within the larger schema of specificational constructions. The similarities follow from their being specificational construction types.

138

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

According to Patten (2012), IT-clefts arose in OE.26 Structurally, they originally focused NPs (38a). Various structural changes have led to the partial alignment of IT-clefts to pseudo-clefts; by ME they could focus adverbial phrases (38b) and, more importantly, in Modern English they have been used to focus clauses as in (38c): (38)

a. þa cwædon þa geleafullan, ‘Nis hit na Petrus then said the faithful, NEG-is it NEG Peter þæt þær cnucað, ac is his ængel’. REL there knocks but is his angel ‘then said the faithful, “it is not Peter who knocks there, but his angel” ’. (Ælfric, Catholic Homilies, I.34: 474 [Patten 2012: 172, citing Ball 1991: 39]) b. Me troweþ þat by þe prayers of þis holy mayde Me believes that by the prayers of this holy maid it is þat þat place was never ʒit destroyed. it is that that place was never yet destroyed ‘I think that it was by the prayers of this holy maiden that that place was never destroyed till now’. (a1387 John of Trevisa, Polychronicon [Patten 2012: 197]). c. It is because high or low wages and profit must be paid, in order to bring a particular commodity to market, that its price is high or low. (1766 Smith, Wealth of Nations [CL 1])

Likewise there has been partial alignment of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts to ITclefts since they can now readily focus NPs as well as clauses (Traugott 2008c, Patten 2012). Pseudo-clefts arose in the sixteenth century, first TH-clefts and ALL-clefts, both of which appear around 1600, and a couple of generations later WHAT-clefts. Both occur in contesting discourse environments and implicate counteractive stance (see chapter 5.3.6). Initially V in ALL- and WHAT-clefts is almost exclusively say or do ‘act’ (main verb). Do is attested in several LION: EEBO texts, and extensively in CLMETEV where it is favored in represented conversation or reports of what was said and in letters. Surprisingly, however, it does not occur in OBP, despite the context of trials in which what someone did is of crucial importance. In OBP the V in pseudo-clefts is a verb of locution. We discuss precursors of ALL and WHAT-clefts in 3.5.1, early development of constructionalized pseudo-clefts in 3.5.2, and later developments in 3.5.3. In 3.5.4 we

26

This analysis contrasts with that of Ball (1994), who argues that the IT-cleft arose in ME.

Grammatical Constructionalization

139

discuss what evidence pseudo-clefts provide for some of the hypotheses developed in the frameworks of grammaticalization and constructionalization. 3.5.1 Precursors of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts Sixteenth-century texts suggest that a rich range of biclausal constructs were produced by speakers with features that might have enabled new links to be made in the network that led to the growth of the pseudo-clefts. At this period there was a construction that was pragmatically specificational: the IT-cleft, which had already long been in existence (see (38a) above). Because it was used to focus only NP or PP (38b), it does not have the same form as the later pseudo-clefts and appears not to have been a direct model. A new TH-cleft was coming into existence. Then, as now, TH- could be the pronoun that, or the thing.27 This construction too was specificational, but again the form is different from the pseudo-clefts. Most importantly, the TH-element could be the subject as in (39), whereas, as we will show, ALL and WHAT are objects until the nineteenth century. Also, X could be a nominal, as in (39a). (39)

a. Here stands my son, a banish’d man, And here my brother, weeping at my woes. But that which gives my soul the greatest spurn Is dear Lavinia, dearer than my soul. (1594 Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus III.1.99 [LION: Shakespeare]) b. The thing which doth amate, and most anoy my mind, The thing that dismays and most troubles my mind Is that my hard estate, no remedy can finde. is that my difficult condition no remedy can find (1580 Gifford, A Posie of Gilloflowers [LION: EEBO])

However, the existence of specificational clefts no doubt enabled some analogical thinking. Before the emergence of pseudo-clefts there were also left-dislocations. This kind of structure was used fairly extensively in ME, but was in decline during the EModE period (Pérez-Guerra and Tizón-Couto 2009). Left-dislocations could occur with any verb, but those with BE have some structural surface similarity to pseudo-clefts: (40)

a. What that he did or seid it was to geue us good ensamples. What REL he did or said it was to give us good examples (c1470 Bible F. [MED])

27 THAT-clefts may, however, be related to demonstrative that-clefts, which contain extraposed relative clauses (That’s Susan on the phone) (Patten, p.c.). In that case they are members of a different construction.

140

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes b. Last of all, that that differs from any thing, that Last of all, that which differs from any thing, that cannot be the same that is not hit. cannot be the same that is not it. ‘Last of all, what differs from something cannot be the same as that thing’. (1593 Queen Elizabeth, Boethius [HC ceboeth2])

However, left dislocations cannot be direct sources because there is a resumptive pronoun, and they are not specificational. Likewise examples such as those in (41) cannot be direct sources since the predicate in X is indefinite and descriptive (41a), an adjective (41b), or an adverb (41c), and therefore not specificational. (41)

a. That which they outwardly did, was a token of their mind, and a fruite of their faith. (1600 Abbott, Exposition [LION: EEBO]) b. Though all that I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all, Imploring pardon. (1600 Shakespeare, Henry V, IV.i.320 [LION: Shakespeare]) c. since that all what I am is in thy sight, I onelie say, that . . . (Ainsworth, Henry, 1571–1622? An epistle sent vnto tuuo daughters of VVarwick [LION: EEBO])

There are also some examples which appear to have the form of pseudo-clefts. However, in the case of complex clauses with do followed by to, do is a main verb meaning ‘perform’ followed by a purposive clause in X (42), and in the case of ALLexpressions (42a), ALL means ‘everything’: (42)

a. I loue thee dearer then I doe my life, And all I did, was to aduance thy state, To sunne bright beames of shining happinesse. (1601 Yarrington, Two Lamentable Tragedies [LION: EEBO]) b. Shal. Will you, upon good dowry, marry her? Slen. I will do a greater thing than that, upon your request, cousin, in any reason. Shal. Nay, conceive [‘understand’] me, conceive me, sweet coz. What I do is to pleasure [‘please’] you, coz. Can you love the maid? (?1597 Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor I.i.250 [LION: Shakespeare])

In sum, of the constructs discussed in this section, only IT- and the emerging TH-clefts had specificational, exhaustive-listing meaning, but none had the same syntactic constraints as the pseudo-clefts that will be discussed immediately below.

Grammatical Constructionalization

141

3.5.2 Early pseudo-clefts In the late sixteenth century there is an example in correspondence that appears to be specificational and to have the biclausal pseudo-cleft structure that came to be characteristic of pseudo-clefts in the seventeenth century: [[NP NP V] [BE X]], where NP1 is an object and is relativized. Unlike all in the examples in (41b, c), and (42a), all in (43) means only, and X is factual: (43)

For it is more then death unto me, that her majestie should be thus ready to interpret allwayes hardly of my service, . . . All her majestie can laye to my charge ys going a little furder then she gave me commission for. (1585–6 Earl of Leicester, Letter to Walsyngham [CEECS])

(43) is from a letter by the Earl of Leicester, a former favorite of Queen Elizabeth’s, concerning his arrest for treason. Here all can be understood as ‘the only thing’, and X as ‘the fact that I went a little further than . . . ’. It appears to be an innovation, a token construct. By hypothesis Leicester was unconsciously making a link to specificational constructions, especially the TH-cleft, and to uses of all in contexts where all was deemed less than adequate (see (41b) and chapter 5.3.6 for discussion). Several examples of a new ALL-pseudo-cleft appear shortly after, and later of WHAT-pseudo-clefts as well, primarily with a verb of locution such as say or with do (44). Here ALL and WHAT are objects, do is a pro-verb, X introduced by to is nonpurposive, and the X can be understood as exhaustive, especially when only is present, as in (44b): (44)

a. there is no possibilitie of overthrowing the new election . . . all you can doe is to do some good for the tyme to come,which if you can doe conveniently, and without much trouble, it wilbe woorth your labour. (1624 Oliver Naylor, Letter to John Cosin [CEEC]) b. thereby to insinuate, That what he did, was only to Preach to such, as could not come to our Churches. (1661 Stillingfleet, Unreasonableness of Separation [CEEC])

The new ALL-pseudo-cleft micro-construction can be formalized as [[ALLi NP V] [BE Xj] $ [Anaphorici, Specificational class memberi low on value scale]]. Likewise the WHAT-pseudo-cleft micro-construction can be formalized as [[WHATi NP V] [BE Xj] $ [Anaphorici, Specificational class memberi]]. These examples suggest not only that constructionalization of individual pseudoclefts had occurred, but that a new schema has developed. The schema and its members are new to the system in the way that Meillet envisioned for grammaticalization. In terms of specifying function and information structure they are closely networked with the IT- and TH-clefts. The examples are all anaphoric or at least invoke a recoverable or pragmatically accessible antecedent.

142

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Very early on ALL-clefts with do appear occasionally without to, evidencing a further constructional change: full restructuring of do as a pro-verb as in: (45)

What need’st thou woman such a whining keepe? Thy sonn’s as well as anie man ith’ lande, Why all he did, was bidd a man but stande, And told him coyne he lackt. ‘Why, woman, do you need to go on whining so? You son is as well as any man in the land. Why, all he did was tell a man to stand, and told him he lacked money’. (1616 Goddard, A Mastiff Vvhelp [LION: EEBO])

3.5.3 The later history of ALL- and WHAT-pseudo-clefts The textual data show that during the later seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the set of verbs used in the relative clause of pseudo-clefts expanded from do, say to include statives such as mean, desire, and occasionally an intransitive but continued to be dominantly transitive until the mid nineteenth century. In CLMETEV, the first example of what happened with WHAT as subject and an intransitive verb in a pseudocleft is (46): (46)

Here they again anchored on the 11th. Their reception was, however, very different. No crowd of canoes round the ship; no enthusiastic mass of natives on shore. Everything was silence. What had happened was that the king had departed, leaving the bay under ‘tabu’, i.e. a sacred interdict. (1768–71 Captain Cook, Journal [CL 1])

The next example occurs a hundred years later, so (46) appears to be an innovation. However, between 1868 and 1914 there are five examples. The first example in OBP appears as late as 1901 (47a), although trials favour narratives about what happened. The first example in COHA is dated 1913 (47b) and the first example of all that happened in a pseudo-cleft is dated 1920 (47c). This suggests that happen came to be associated with narrative pseudo-clefts in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century. (47)

a. I never hit the man at all. What happened was that Bignall turned round to me; he threw his arm up, and I threw my arm up. (1901 Trial of George Watson, t19010722-545 [OBP]) b. There was no peace for us even on the Barrier. What happened was that the entire feminine population—eleven in number—had thought fit to appear in a condition usually considered ‘interesting’. (1913 Chater, South Pole [COHA]) c. He didn't commit adultery. I don't want you to think that happened. All that happened was he bit my best girl, Nell Hunter, on the neck. (1920 Anderson, Poor White [COHA])

Grammatical Constructionalization

143

With the development of use with intransitive verbs, by the mid nineteenth century the syntactic template was [[WHAT/ALL (NP) V] [BE X]], like that of TH-clefts, in which TH- could be subject from the beginning, as in (39). ALL-clefts with do but no infinitive marker to are attested very early (see (45), which dates back to 1616), However, WHAT-clefts with an unmarked non-finite clause after do do not appear until the twentieth century and are rare until the later part of the century. Two early examples are:28 (48) a. what he did was put the items of the program in the order of their newly realized importance. (1929 American Electric Railway Assoc. [Google Books, accessed April 12th 2011) b. What Meher Baba did was eat, play ping pong and cricket with his follower. (Feb 25 1932 Time [TIME]) Rohdenburg (1998: 195) cites research showing very low percentages of to in ALLclefts with do (17% in the 1991 Guardian and 7.8% in the 1991 Washington Times). The percentage with to is, however, much higher for pseudo-clefts with all, what, thing(s) combined (32.4% in the 1991 Guardian), and 50.3% for WHAT-clefts with do in The Times and Sunday Times in 1994 (Rohdenburg 1998: 196). This suggests suggests that a significant change to WHAT-clefts occurred in the latter half of the twentieth century. For the first three centuries WHAT-clefts with do were not directly matched to or modeled on ALL-clefts with do, but in the mid-twentieth century, as WHATclefts came to be used more frequently than the originally more frequent ALL-clefts, to in WHAT-clefts with do were reduced and, whether by analogization, or by general reduction processes, came to be more similar to the ALL-clefts. Investigating contemporary conversation, Hopper and Thompson (2008: 105) suggest that in this register WHAT-clefts frame the talk in terms of such categories as ‘event, action, and paraphrase’ in a monoclausal structure. In their view the structure is not biclausal, and semantically/pragmatically they are not necessarily anaphoric, or specificational. Hopper and Thompson argue that at least in the case of the most frequent verbs in WHAT-clefts (do, happen, say), the initial string is an ‘initial formula’ or ‘projector’ (also referred to as a ‘set-up’, see Massam 1999, Zwicky 2007) that ‘projects’ a text, which immediately follows, i.e. is cataphoric. According to the concept of projection (Auer 2005), interlocutors have expectations about what is to be said, and pick up cues routinized for the purpose (see also Hopper 2008: 281). The frame in pseudo-clefts is a relatively fixed projector of the type that could be characterized in our notation as [WH (NP) V BE] (note BE belongs to the projector); this projector evaluates X as of significance to the discourse at hand. Since the initial string serves as a cue to the hearer that the speaker evaluates what follows as being of

28

Thanks to Christian Mair for both these examples.

144

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

some significance, a cleft structure is preferred over a string without a projector for the announcement of an event, paraphrase, etc. Hopper and Thompson’s examples are drawn from conversation. There is some evidence for the monoclausal analysis in (informal) writing as well and in relatively formal spoken settings. (49a) is from a story in the magazine of the Sunday Inquirer, and (49b) occurs in the context of the opening statement by the chair of an intercultural meeting in a University setting: (49)

a. Nikki Caine, 19, doesn’t want to be a movie star. What she hopes to do is be a star on the horse-show circuit. (10/10/1976 Today, p. 44 [Prince 1978: 887]) b. so what I’d like to do is I think it would be very helpful for one of our colleagues to volunteer to as we say in # in Scotland start the ball rolling cause we really love football. (Spencer-Oatey and Stadler 2009)

In (49a) do is a pro-verb for be in X. This be is to be understood as ‘come to be’,29 and is therefore not fully stative. Nevertheless, it also shows not only host-class expansion of the kind of verb for which do can substitute but a weakening of the link between the first and second parts of the pseudo-cleft. (48b) is a highly hedged utterance in which there is no direct structural link between what I’d like to do is and what follows. There is, however, an implicature that X is ‘ask for one of you to volunteer’, and there is an accessible givenness in that the chair is expected to set the agenda. Over the course of the twentieth century, do, happen, and say came to be the most frequently used Vs in WHAT-clefts. Hopper (2001) cites 118 or 66% do, 23 or 13% happen, and 15 or 8 % say in the COBUILD corpus, and Koops and Hilpert (2009) cite 55 do, 17 happen, and 6 say in the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English (SBCSAE) of the 1980s; other verbs, e.g. want, mean occur with very low frequency.30 It appears that the changes are from a construction of the type in (50a) in the seventeenth century, to one of the type in (50b) by the end of the twentieth century (at least with the verbs that appear with high frequency: do, happen, and say): (50) a. [[ALL/WHATi NP V] [BE Xj] $ [Anaphorici, Specificational class memberi,]] b. [ALL/WHAT (NP) V BE [Xi] $ [Cataphoric framing - Eventi]] If this analysis is correct, we may note that it has some of the characteristics of the kind of reduction from biclausal to monoclausal structure that Lehmann (2008) discusses (see 3.2.1 above). However, it is not the case that ‘pragmatic relations lose their specificity’ (Lehmann 2008: 213); rather there is a change in pragmatics. ‘Specificational’ pragmatics associated with identifying referents of sets has given 29

Thanks to Eric Smitterberg for this observation. Since Koops and Hilpert (2009) interpret WHAT-pseudo-clefts as focus constructions, and do not restrict them to specificational discourse function, they include several other WHAT-expressions in their inventory, e.g. what is more/worse/of importance BE X. Most of these are cataphoric. 30

Grammatical Constructionalization

145

way to the pragmatics of indexing upcoming discourse. What was originally subjective pragmatics (the speaker identifies referents and sets) has become more interactional (the speaker gives the hearer metatextual cues about what the hearer should attend to), but neither is more or less ‘specific’ than the other. By hypothesis, use of the WHAT-cleft as a projector may have had two kinds of sources. One may have been the development of a formula like What I said was this: X. Such formulae begin to appear in OBP in the late eighteenth century (see (51a)), and what happened was this (51b): (51)

a. he says, as near as he can guess, what he said was this, that he seized a person's hand near his pocket, which appeared to be the prisoner, and therefore he believed him to be the person. (1789 Trial of George Barrington, t17891209-18 [OBP]) b. But I knew at once that he had undone me! What happened was this. The audience got together, attracted by Governor Gorges's name . . . . (1868 Hale, If, Yes and Perhaps [COHA])

Both these formulae are, however, anaphoric as well as cataphoric. The most likely source is expansion of the pseudo-cleft construction to intransitive verbs as this seems particularly likely to have enabled the initial string to be reinterpreted by at least some speakers as a narrative projection marker similar to so. Loss of to in WHAT-clefts with do is presumably symptomatic of the change, suggesting it did not occur till the later part of the twentieth century. These developments were probably indirectly influenced by the development of a large set of projectors such as the fact/ problem/point is from the mid-eighteenth century on (Curzan 2012), but that hypothesis needs to be followed up. 3.5.4 Discussion The development of TH- and ALL-clefts around 1600 and of WHAT-clefts slightly later can be considered to be prime examples of the development of new microconstructions in contrastive, adversative contexts. Interpreting pseudo-clefts as having an information-structuring, especially focus-marking function, Traugott (2008c) earlier showed that they are instances of grammaticalization in so far as they involve fixing of an information-structuring pattern and, in the case of do, loss of concrete semantic meaning. She suggested that the further development of WHAT-clefts (and possibly of ALL and TH-clefts as well, although this remains to be investigated) into monoclausal structures can be interpreted as an example of grammaticalization of the kind Lehmann (2008) discusses: a historically initial biclausal cleft construction occurring largely in contrastive, contesting contexts, eventually becomes reduced to a monoclausal one. They also provide evidence of Himmelmann’s (2004) three types of expansion. There is semantic-pragmatic

146

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

expansion with the development of constructions that signal exhaustive listing in addition to those that are descriptive or purposive like (39)–(42), and with the assignment of the restrictive ‘only’ meaning to all. In the twentieth century some pseudo-clefts with frequent verbs start to have a new discourse function in WHATclefts: framing event, paraphrase, etc. (semantic-pragmatic expansion). There is host class expansion in that the set of verbs in V (at first mainly do and say) is expanded to use with mean, desire, want, happen, and also the set of verbs in X after do (e.g. use of be ‘become’). And even though there is reduction in form there is syntactic expansion when bare infinitives with do start to be used with WHAT-clefts since an alternative syntax has come into being. We suggest that all these factors apply equally well to grammatical constructionalization. With respect to possible analogy, it is striking that initially ALL and WHAT-clefts appear not to have been directly influenced by TH-clefts, at least with respect to being used as subject. Furthermore, while ALL-clefts with do did not require to in non-finite X from the very earliest times, WHAT-clefts with do required to for over two hundred and fifty years. There is therefore little evidence of local analogization in the sense of close constructional exemplar pattern match. However, it is important not to ignore the relationship to the larger network of specificational clefts generally, including IT-clefts and TH-clefts. As mentioned in 3.5.1 IT-clefts appear not to have been direct precursors of pseudo-clefts. However, over time IT-clefts came to have structures more closely aligned to those of pseudo-clefts in that they came to allow clauses as well as NPs and adverbials. Likewise, ALL- and WHAT-clefts have become more closely aligned with IT-clefts as usage with NPs expanded (What she wanted was his property again). There has therefore been an aligning of structures within the specificational cleft family. The forms of the IT-clefts and pseudo-clefts are too dissimilar for the members of this family to belong to one schema given Goldberg’s criterion that each node inherits the properties of its dominating nodes (2.4.2), but they are clearly close in the network, being specificational and clefted. Finally, we may note that the complexity and specificity of pseudo-clefts provides evidence for the play-off between competing motivations that Goldberg (1995: 67–68) characterizes as the Principle of Maximized Expressive Power, ‘the inventory of constructions is maximized for communicative purposes’ and the Principle of Maximized Economy, where ‘the number of distinct constructions is minimized as much as possible’. On the one hand, language users seek clarity and specificity in the detail of each individual construction, leading to an increase in the number of distinct constructions. On the other hand, language users seek to generalize wherever possible, leading to a simpler system. This interplay between expressiveness and economy means that ‘the two principles mutually constrain each other’ (Goldberg 1995: 69). Without such a constraint, language users in the seventeenth century could have developed a general schematic form such as [[ALL NP V] [V X]] rather than the one proposed ([[ALL NP V] [BE X]]). But that would have

Grammatical Constructionalization

147

overgeneralized (we do not find examples like All/What Jane did went talk about it). Instead the micro-construction is a partial schema in which the specific verb BE is an essential component, the unique member of the slot. As the pseudo-clefts show, the constructional network is constantly undergoing shifts, but those shifts are checked by one or other of these two principles: economy leads to the growth of schematic constructions (because they are the most general), while expressiveness leads to the development of specific constructions (because they provide the most detail).

3.6 Summary In this chapter we have focused on the development of procedural constructions by grammatical constructionalization and have considered how a constructionalization approach can incorporate and in some cases enhance, the insights of work done in the research paradigm known as grammaticalization. We have proposed that: (a) Grammatical constructionalization is the development through a series of small-step changes of a formnew-meaningnew sign that is (mostly) procedural in function. A grammatical sign cues how the speaker conceptualizes relationships between referents within the clause(s), and how the addressee is to interpret the clause(s). In many cases grammatical constructionalization involves loss of lexical meaning but the sources may also be non-lexical, as in the case of the pseudo-clefts. (b) A constructionalist perspective supports the model of grammaticalization as expansion (GE). At the same time it is compatible with the model of grammaticalization as reduction and increased dependency (GR). This is because grammatical constructionalization involves expansion in construction-types and range of use on the one hand, and chunking and fixing of form on the other. Expansion is the logical outcome of attrition resulting from repetition and chunking. (c) Expansion and reduction may be intertwined, e.g. bleaching (loss of lexical meaning) may lead to expanded use, which may in turn be followed by reduction of the signal. Grammatical constructionalization shows only partial directionality, since after expansion, constructions may be subject to marginalization and obsolescence. (d) Grammatical constructionalization is the outcome of changes, not a process (see also Joseph 2001, 2004 and elsewhere on grammaticalization as result). (e) Degrammaticalization, which depends on a GR approach to grammaticalization, can be rethought in constructionalist terms. Some examples, such as deinflectionalization, appear to be cases of expansion in schematicity under specific circumstances.

148

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(f ) Analogical thinking is an important factor in the increase of productivity and schematicity. Analogization accounts for alignment of new micro-constructions into (sub)schemas. (g) Because the constructional approach models different aspects of form and meaning as distributed over different features of a construction, it is possible to model the step-wise interplay of both dimensions in the creation and subsequent history of a construction. The key contribution of a constructional perspective to earlier work on grammaticalization is that the grammatical architecture demands thinking in terms of both form and meaning equally. As a result, the ‘other side of the equation’ that is always at least covertly present but often backgrounded in work on grammaticalization as change in form or grammaticalization as change in meaning must be brought to the fore. Likewise, networks among constructions provide a framework for thinking about how analogical thinking and analogization play a role in grammatical change. Grammaticalization as GR was developed assuming a modular theory of grammar. So was GE, but assuming a less restrictive view of grammar. The findings of grammaticalization are and will continue to be foundational to work on grammatical constructionalization since they provide the evidence for the micro-changes that lead to and result from grammatical constructionalization, and to likelihoods of recruitment to schemas. When grammaticalization occurs is key to identifying when new grammatical formnew-meaningnew pairing occurs. What precedes are enabling constructional changes, what follow are constructional changes, often involving analogical expansions as well as morphophonological reductions. Although important for understanding change, the issue of directionality is not criterial for grammatical constructionalization, because the phenomenon of directionality becomes apparent primarily from a GR perspective with focus on developing items, not on the contexts, sets and schemas within which the item develops. And while all change, including analogization, is neoanalysis, analogization is an important factor as constructions develop. A non-modular view of grammar that privileges routines, chunks, sets, and schemas, also shows that grammatical changes are more far-reaching that might be supposed under traditional views of grammaticalization.

4 Lexical Constructionalization 4.1 Introduction In this chapter, we present our view of lexical constructionalization in detail, with some attention to its relationship to earlier work on lexicalization. As shown in chapter 3, a constructional approach to language change invites the researcher to rethink the development of grammatical constructions in terms of schematic as well as substantive constructionalization. It also invites rethinking the development of lexical constructions in similar terms. The output of constructionalization is a new node in the language network that may be more towards the ‘contentful’ end of the continuum, or more towards the ‘procedural’ end. Our focus in this chapter is on the development of new signs which are formnew-meaningnew and in which the meaning pole is associated mainly with concrete semantics and the form pole with major categories such as N, V, or ADJ. The chapter is organized as follows. In section 4.2 we introduce our approach to thinking about lexical constructions, including lexical schemas. In section 4.3 we consider some of the ways in which the term ‘lexicalization’ has in the past been used in work in diachronic linguistics. We start our discussion of ways in which diachronic lexicalization has been treated in the past with discussion of positions in which ‘grammatical’ and ‘lexical’ material are seen as discrete (4.3.1), then move on to approaches that include both kinds of material in one inventory of specific (non-schematic) expressions (4.3.2), and finally point to some ways in which a constructional approach can move toward reconciling the issues (4.3.3). Section 4.4 is concerned with the characteristics of constructionalization identified in chapter 1.4.2: changes in productivity, schematicity, and compositionality, with focus on lexical constructionalization. In chapter 3.4 we suggested that in grammatical constructionalization there is a degree of directionality involved, in that constructions that develop a procedural function are typically more schematic, more productive and less compositional. Since the development of lexical constructions may be shown to involve both expansion and schematicity, like that of grammatical constructions, these factors continue to be relevant; however, we will show that in lexical constructionalization they have less predictive power for directionality. The principal data

150

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

sections are 4.5 and 4.6, which are distinguished in terms of the kind of output. 4.5 discusses the development of new complex micro-constructions and schemas, such as word-formation patterns. 4.6 discusses the development of new atomic constructions out of complex constructions. In section 4.7 we touch on a range of largely contentful phrasal and clausal idioms including ‘snowclones’, schemas that grow from relatively fixed micro-constructions that are usually formulae or clichés (e.g. X is the new Y ). 4.8 addresses the issue of instantaneous, type node creation where the semantic pole of the construction is referential. This includes the development of ‘extra-grammatical’ forms like acronyms, clippings and blends. We argue that these are instances of lexical constructionalization, but, unlike instances of grammatical constructionalization, and many other instances of lexical constructionalization, they do not arise gradually. In 4.9 we revisit issues raised in chapter 3.4 and consider the hypothesized relationship between degrammaticalization and the creation of new lexical constructions. 4.10 provides a summary of the chapter. Although for purposes of presentation we have divided chapters 3 and 4 into grammatical and lexical constructionalization, we consider them to be on a gradient, and intertwined, not in opposition. As indicated in chapter 2.7.6, there is some debate, for example, about whether the way-construction is lexical or grammatical. We have argued that although it is at neither end of the lexical-grammatical continuum, it has over time become more procedural, as evidenced by the iterativity of the newest subschema (accidental accompaniment). Many other partially lexical, partially grammatical constructions could be considered, e.g. the development of [give NP a V-ing] as in give him a talking to (Trousdale 2008a), [take NP and VTR Pronoun (Adverbial)] as in take a pair of scissors and cut it off (Hopper 2008), and take prisoner (Berlage 2012). In this chapter, however, we consider constructionalization that involves the development of primarily contentful expressions and focus on more prototypical cases of lexical constructionalization.

4.2 On some characteristics of lexical constructions In modular frameworks, a distinction is typically made between the lexicon as the repository of idiosyncrasies and the grammar as the combinatorial system, a distinction articulated in Bloomfield (1933: 274) as: ‘the lexicon is really an appendix of the grammar, a list of basic irregularities’. The list includes both lexical and grammatical expressions. As Bloomfield also says: Strictly speaking . . . every morpheme of a language is an irregularity, since the speaker can use it only after hearing it used, and the reader of a linguistic description can know of its existence only if it is listed for him. (Bloomfield 1933: 274)

Also considering grammar to be associated with the system, lexicon with idiosyncrasies, Lightfoot (2011: 439) has recently explicitly suggested that ‘the lexicon arguably

Lexical Constructionalization

151

entails all words and certain word parts, regardless of their being more grammatical/ systemic or more lexical/idiosyncratic’. While this may sound like a ‘constructicon’ it is not, since expressions in the ‘lexicon’ are specific only, while in the constructicon they are schematic as well as specific. As discussed throughout this book, the constructional approach relies on a nonmodular framework of language, and treats it as a hierarchized conceptual network. In this model the inventory is the constructicon (see 1.4.1) which consists of constructions of various sizes from affixes (-ness, un-, -s plural) to clauses (SAI). Like entries in the lexicon as conceived by Lightfoot (2011), constructions in the constructicon may be contentful (twist, mature, X is the new Y ) or procedural (e.g. number, tense, some subschemas of the way-construction). They may be substantive (micro-constructions) or (partially) schematic. Among partially schematic constructions are lexical word-formation schemas such as schemas for forming deverbal nouns (swimmer, researcher) and deadjectival verbs (lexicalize, grammaticalize), and various (semi)idiomatic phrases and clauses (not the sharpest tool in the box, you’ll be lucky to). These are the main topic of the present chapter. In chapter 3 we showed that grammatical constructions may be schemas, and that grammatical constructionalization typically leads to increased schematization. We also showed that grammatical constructionalization involves initial decrease in compositionality at the micro-constructional level, and that post-constructionalization constructional changes may be accompanied by both increase in construct frequency and internal reduction as the micro-construction increases its collocational range. Here we suggest that word-formation schemas undergo similar changes. The main differences between word-formation schemas and grammatical schemas are that the former involve bound morphemes, whereas the latter may be entirely made up of free morphemes (see also Croft 2001: 17; Booij 2010). Furthermore, word-formation schemas have primarily contentful meaning and major syntactic category form (noun, verb, adjective), while grammatical schemas always have procedural meanings, at least in part. However, both may be productive and schematic in ways to be discussed in 4.4. Like syntactic strings, morphological expressions can be positioned on a gradient ranging from fully substantive to fully schematic expressions (see Croft 2007a). As Booij (2010, 2013) observes, this approach to morphology suggests that, as a pattern of regularity, word-formation is schematic. In our representation of lexical constructions, we follow Booij’s approach, which is in turn based largely on the model espoused by Jackendoff (2002; see also 2013). Given that users of English are regularly exposed to constructs like fixable, squeezable, and washable, with the meanings ‘can be fixed’, ‘can be squeezed’ and ‘can be washed’, respectively, a schema may be abstracted across these instances of use, represented as follows (adapted from Booij 2013): (1)

[[Vtri-able]aj $ [[can undergo process denoted by VTRi]PROPERTY]j]

152

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

This may be read as: transitive verb stem (VTR) plus -able, which together form an adjective (A), is linked with the meaning ‘can undergo the process denoted by the transitive verb’. ‘Property’ denotes the typical meaning of the atomic lexical schema which has the form A. In this and other representations below, the formal representation does not distinguish between the phonological and morphosyntactic subcomponents of the construction. The schema in (1) represents a prototype for this particular lexical construction. It is a productive word-formation schema, witnessed by new constructs like skypable. As mentioned in previous chapters, a more productive schema will typically have a higher type frequency, possibly including a large number of ‘hapax legomena’ (Baayen 2003, Baayen and Renouf 1996, Hay and Baayen 2005). Hapax legomena are one-offs, therefore constructs, but they have the potential to become conventionalized as a construction, as was illustrated with the example of shoot one’s way in chapter 2.7.4. As a schema that generalizes across a set of subschemas, (1) fully sanctions, i.e. constrains and specifies the well-formedness of, micro-constructions like fixable, squeezable, and washable.1 In these cases, the base does not change its phonological shape, and the meaning of the schema is elaborated through the specification of the meaning of the verb in each instance. However, the schema only partially sanctions micro-constructions like drinkable (when used to describe a wine, for instance) and despicable. In the former case, although the phonological shape of the base remains the same (so the construct is fully sanctioned on the formal side), the meaning is not ‘can be drunk’ but rather ‘pleasing to drink’. In the case of despicable, neither the form nor the meaning is fully sanctioned—the meaning is not ‘can be despised’ but rather ‘ought to be despised’. While for some speakers there may be a phonological alternation between the free form despise and the bound form despic-, for others the degree of opacity between the free and the bound forms may be so great for some speakers that despicable is not treated as a composite unit. An example Booij (2010: 27) gives is Dutch werk-baar (‘workable, feasible’), which is derived from an intransitive verb werk; all other adjectives in -baar are derived from transitive verbs (p. 27) (see Booij 2013 for a related discussion). These special cases are examples of what Lakoff (1987) refers to as ‘overrides’, exceptions to general rules that have to be learned. As in the case of grammatical subschemas discussed in chapter 3, ‘each node inherits properties from its dominating node’ (Booij 2010: 25). The concept of overrides is crucial for the notion of default inheritance (see chapter 2.4.2), since overrides apply when default inheritance does not (see further Hudson 2010: 28–9). Indeed, as Booij (2010, 2013) observes, the approach to morphology outlined here suggests that lexical constructions are hierarchical and that default inheritance plays

1

Full and partial sanction are discussed in chapter 2, section 2.2.2.

Lexical Constructionalization

153

a significant role in them. We may therefore establish an inheritance hierarchy as represented in Figure 4.1 for some instances of the schema in (1), where a distinction is made between full sanction (f ) and partial sanction (p): [[VTRi-able]Aj ↔ [[‘can be SEMi-ed’]PROPERTY]j]

p

f

f

despicable

washable

squeezable

f fixable

[override: form: despicmeaning: ‘ought to be despised’]

p drinkable [override meaning: ‘pleasant to drink’]

Figure 4.1 A schema for some lexical constructions in -able

Schemas may vary in productivity. For instance, exocentric compounds are more productive than are endocentric ones. An example of an endocentric VN compound is swearword, which is a kind of word (the N is the determinatum), and an example of an exocentric VN compound is pickpocket, which is not a kind of pocket (the N is not the determinatum) nor a kind of picking.2 We return to the issues of productivity and schematicity in section 4.4. At the level of the micro-construction Booij (2010, 2013) distinguishes between parts of compounds and affixoids. Compounds are made up of two more or less independent words but since the meaning of the compound is not entirely compositional, it forms a separate, but still complex, form-meaning pairing from a phrase made up of the independent words (Bauer 1983: 11). Furthermore, in a language with morphological inflections, the first element of a compound typically loses those inflections, and in a stress language like English there is a stress pattern difference between the free phrase and the compound (see further Giegerich 2004, 2005 on the relation between phrase and compound in English). For example, black and bird are autonomous words. Combined in the compound blackbird they refer to a particular type of black bird (blackbird excludes e.g. crow, raven) and have a different stress pattern (contrast compound bláckbird with phrasal black bírd). In some cases free form-meaning pairings combine in such a way that one member is assigned a more abstract meaning when used in particular compounds. It is known then as an In a compound, the modifying non-head is called the ‘determinant’, and the category-determining ‘head’ (Booij 2007: 53) the ‘determinatum’. To avoid confusion with the syntactic term ‘head’, we will refer, as is customary in much of the morphological literature, to ‘determinant’ and ‘determinatum’. 2

154

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

‘affixoid’. Booij (e.g. 2010: 57) argues affixoids are on a gradient between highly contentful (e.g. bird above), and highly abstract derivational affixes (e.g. -er): They are not yet affixes because they correspond to lexemes, that is, unbound forms, but their meaning differs from that when used as independent lexemes. (Booij 2010: 57)

Examples of affixoids that Booij cites include Dutch reus ‘giant’, followed by a linking element (-e) in expressions such as reuze-leuk ‘very nice’ (p. 56), where reuze has an intensifying function. While Booij’s argument is essentially synchronic, the principles are clearly very important for diachronic analysis. He observes: such subschemas explain why parts of compounds can develop into real affixes (Booij 2005): words receive a special ‘bound’, often more abstract interpretation within compounds. (Booij 2013: 260)

One of the distinguishing features of an affixoid is that, because the meaning has been generalized, it can enable the development of a productive word-formation pattern which forms a subschema of the compounding schema. Later some productive wordformation patterns may become emancipated from the compound schema and merged with other word-formation schemas. We will discuss such developments in sections 4.5 and 4.6. To distinguish the three kinds of morphological relationships within lexical schemas and the micro-constructions which they sanction we need a special notation. Small capitals (e.g. dom) are used in cases where, for ease of exposition, we ignore distinctions between relevant morphological categories such as ‘word’, ‘element of compound’, ‘affixoid’ and ‘affix’. In cases where we need to be more explicit in describing specific issues, particularly in relation to change, we use a vertical line to separate elements of a compound (e.g. black|bird, OE biscop|dom ‘bishop|jurisdiction’), a hyphen to separate an affixoid from its base (e.g. Dutch reuze-leuk ‘very nice’, ME cyning-dom ‘territory ruled by a king’), and a period to separate an affix from its base or stem (e.g. PDE mis.trust). The fact that the derivational morphology involved in word-formation is schematic may be one of the reasons that it is sometimes included in discussions of grammaticalization (see 4.3.3 below). Another is the fact that some word-formation is more procedural than others. While word-formation is almost always associated with categories like N, V, and ADJ, some has more traditionally grammatical characteristics than others, e.g. derivational affixes that derive nouns (e.g. ness, ity, ism), verbs (ify, ize), adjectives (ic as in Milton.ic, able as in squeez.able, with modal meaning), and adverbs (ly as in slow.ly, wise as in cross.wise) are more grammatical than ‘reversal’ un in un.tie, or more recently ‘atypical’ un in un.cola. Of these, derivational affixes like -able, which has partially modal meaning are closest to having procedural meaning.

Lexical Constructionalization

155

A particularly interesting case is discussed in Petré and Cuyckens (2008): that of the use in OE of the preposition be as a verb prefix in a schematic construction [[Subj be.V OBJ OBL] $ [Subj totally affects Obj by means of V]]. Here an intransitive verb like ridan ‘to ride’, gan ‘to go’ is used transitively and the constructional meaning is that an area was totally covered, or an object was totally affected (an aspectual meaning). For ‘total coverage’ compare (2a) with (2b): (2)

a. Cyneheard . . . hine þær be.rad ond þone bur Cyneheard . . . him there around.rode and the chamber utan be.eode from-outside around-went. ‘Cyneheard . . . besieged him there and surrounded the chamber from the outside’. (c890 ChronA (Plummer) 755 [Petré and Cuyckens 2008: 160]) b. Her rad se here ofer Mierce innan East Engle. here rode the army through Mercia into East Anglia ‘This year the army rode through Mercia into East Anglia’. (c890 ChronA (Plummer) 870 [Petré and Cuyckens 2008: 160])

Over time the aspectual telic, ‘total coverage, affectedness’ meaning of the construction was weakened, and, as the construction obsolesced,3 some derived verb forms became unanalyzable atomic lexical constructions, e.g. befoul (see section 4.5.2 for this type of development in the domain of nouns). In their proposal that grammaticalization is the development of secondary functions, Boye and Harder (2012: 19) briefly revisit the question of whether derivational morphology is grammatical and conclude that it is, on the grounds that, like grammatical morphology, it has the secondary function of ‘an accompanying expression’ (p. 28). They explicitly reject attempts to distinguish between more lexical and more grammatical derivation (see e.g. Hopper and Traugott 2003: 5) on grounds that the difference is one of meaning (p. 19). Consistent with our view of the gradient between lexical and grammatical constructions, and our attempt to build a comprehensive view of constructional change, we distinguish lexical and grammatical morphology on the basis of contentful versus procedural function. We therefore distinguish between derivational morphology such as ness or dom which has primarily lexical function and the prefix be which has primarily procedural function. With this framework in mind, we now shift the focus to the diachronic evolution of lexical word-formations. But first, by way of introduction, we briefly review some

3 In PDE the construction is still available, though with low productivity. It was early extended to nonverbs, usually with the generalized meaning of ‘furnished with’ (e.g. bespouse), and in contemporary coinings is often used in a humorous way, cf. bespectacled, becostumed (Petré and Cuyckens 2008). Note that all contemporary coinings are participial forms of verbs only, and thus have limited distribution (*I bespectacled my son this morning).

156

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

existing work on the phenomenon of lexicalization (for more extensive discussion see Brinton and Traugott 2005).

4.3 Some approaches to lexicalization To date, the work on lexicalization has been conducted primarily from the perspective of reduction. This perspective is similar to the GR perspective in work on grammaticalization, and by partial analogy we call it ‘lexicalization as increased reduction’ (LR).4 Reviewing various approaches to lexicalization, Blank (2001: 1603) summarizes a number of positions, of which we focus on two, the first more general, the second narrower, as follows: Lexicalization1 is a process by which complex word-formations and other syntagmatic constructions become syntactically and semantically fixed entries of the mental lexicon. Lexicalization3 is a process by which complex words become simple words.

An example he gives of lexicalization1 is the compound bullet|hole (p. 1599). Like black|bird discussed above, this has a fixed order, stress on bullet rather than hole, and is semantically restricted since it means only a hole made by a bullet, not to put one in (compare button|hole). An example of lexicalization3 is ModE barn, from OE bere ‘barley’ + ærn ‘place’ (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 97). In some cases, the prime research question has been how to distinguish lexicalization from grammaticalization, assuming both involve reduction. One thread has been an attempt to show they are essentially complementary (Lehmann 1989, 2002), another that there are areas of overlap but also difference (Wischer 2000, Brinton and Traugott 2005), but in all cases, reduction from complex to simple is a common theme. We first consider the position that ‘grammatical’ and ‘lexical’ material are distinct and indeed discrete and then consider ways in which they are similar. 4.3.1 Alleged discrete outputs of lexicalization and grammaticalization The extreme position that the output of lexicalization and grammaticalization is discrete is identifiable with what Himmelmann (2004: 21) calls the ‘box approach (or metaphor)’, in which two aspects of language—the material that a language user has to learn (the lexicon), and the combinatorial possibilities of a language (the grammar)— are contained in different ‘boxes’, from which and into which various linguistic items move. Himmelmann cites Lehmann (1989) as an example of this approach, although Lehmann conceptualizes grammar as a continuum with lexical and grammatical poles (see his model in e.g. Lehmann 1989: 16–17, 2002: 3), and indeed says grammatical and lexical morphemes are ‘both members of the morphemicon’ (Lehmann 2002: 4). 4 For the most part the literature on lexicalization, as opposed to grammaticalization, does not address increased dependency, or claims it is reduced (see section 4.3.1). Therefore it is not fully parallel to GR.

Lexical Constructionalization

157

Lehmann can be inferred to assume a ‘box’ approach despite his focus on a continuum and positing of a single morphemicon, because of the rigid distinction he seeks to establish between the two outputs. He says that both grammaticalization and lexicalization must be considered in terms not of their starting-point (Startpunkt), but of their end-point (Zielpunkt), a position with which we agree. But he goes on: Alles, was eine Einheit in die Grammatik zieht, ist Grammaticalisierung; alles, was eine Einheit ins Lexicon zieht, ist Lexikalisierung. ‘Everything that draws a unit into the grammar is grammaticalization; everything that draws a unit into the lexicon is lexicalization’. (Lehmann 1989: 15)

This suggests that he sees the prototype output of both lexicalization and grammaticalization as units (Einheit ‘unit’) and thinks of the poles ‘grammar’ and ‘lexicon’ as if they were in fact discrete storage boxes into which the language user deposits linguistic items of different kinds. A construction grammar approach to the development of new signs is inconsistent with a position that there are two ‘boxes’. First, constructionalization foregrounds the gradation between lexical and grammatical constructions rather than discreteness. If knowledge of language is knowledge of constructions (i.e. conventional symbolic units), the question of which ‘box’ something goes in becomes vacuous. Furthermore, as schemas typically involve some combination of procedural and referential meaning, it is hard to compartmentalize. Rather, what we observe in instances where formnew-meaningnew pairings come into being is that the new unit has developed either a procedural function (in the case of grammatical constructionalization), or a contentful function (in the case of lexical constructionalization), or a combination of both. Lightfoot (2011: 439–440) cites Meillet’s (1958[1912]: 139) well-known suggestion that the reconstructed phrase *hiu tagu ‘this day, today’ was grammaticalized as Old High German hiutu, German heute as an example of the problem of distinguishing grammaticalization from lexicalization. In our view heute ‘today’, being an adverb, is partially procedural, but also contentful; in other words, it is both procedural and contentful, like many other adverbs.5 One of the problems with the quotation above from Lehmann is what is meant by ‘unit’. A major claim in both Lehmann (1989) and (2002) is that ‘only complex units may be lexicalized’ (2002: 13). In Lehmann’s view, when lexicalization occurs, a complex unit of the type [XY]Z ceases to be complex and is accessed as a unit: Z as a whole is affected, and the dependency relationship between X and Y is obliterated.

5 In our view adverbs are an intermediate category on the gradient between lexical and grammatical constructions. Some are primarily contentful (e.g. quickly), and others primarily procedural (e.g. even, only as focus markers). Recently Giegerich (2012) has argued that adverbs are inflected adjectives, which would suggest they are contentful. The status of the many adverbial schemas is the topic for further research.

158

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Brinton and Traugott (2005: 96) similarly focus on ‘loss of internal constituency’. The complex unit therefore becomes non-compositional. In constructionalization terms, Lehmann’s important insight can be recast as one kind of decrease in compositionality. For example, in the development of cupboard, what historically were two nodes in the network (cup and board) came to be compounded through repeated use as a chunk. The two individual form-meaning pairings eventually came to be perceived by the language user as a non-compositional sequence—a single node, the product of morphosyntactic and morphophonological neoanalyses, cupboard, with new contentful semantics. This is evidenced by the change in conventional meaning, from a piece of wood on which cups were placed to a covered storage unit in a home, and by the change in form to /kUb@d/. Lehmann contrasts ‘renunciation of [ . . . ] internal analysis’ (Lehmann 2002: 13) in lexicalization with retention of internal complexity in grammaticalization, and states that ‘the internal relations of Z become more strict and constrained’. (This is an example of the GR hypothesis.) Our example of cantare habeo is a case in point: the stem (cant-) was retained, and the remainder eventually became an atomic affix, a bound atomic rather than a complex partially free form (habeo could occur in several positions in the clause, see chapter 1.6.4.2). But the problem is that Lehmann’s distinction taken to its logical conclusion requires him to argue that ‘the coalescence of two grammatical morphemes must be called lexicalization’ (Lehmann 2002: 13). Examples he gives are originally grammatical constructions, e.g. himself (< pronoun him + pronoun self ) and Vulgar Latin de ex de ‘from out from’ (a sequence of three prepositions) > Castilian Spanish desde (p. 13). Lehmann contrasts wanna with gonna. Of wanna he says as ‘the combination of a lexical and a grammatical morpheme lexicalizes to a modal’ and of gonna, ‘the combination of semi-grammaticalized going with a grammatical morpheme is lexicalized and further grammaticalized’ (2002: 16). This overdifferentiates a pair that is often thought to be on a gradient of grammaticalization; for example, Krug (2000) includes want to/wanna (also going to/gonna and got to/gotta) among emerging and grammaticalizing modals.6 We conclude that if we were to use Lehmann’s analysis, we would find the kinds of change in Table 4.1 (Lxn and Gzn are abbreviations for lexicalization and grammaticalization respectively). To say a sequence of grammatical elements lexicalized and then grammaticalized again is unparsimonious when ‘univerbation’ (the diachronic process of fixing as a single unit at the word level) should be sufficient. Lindström (2004) attributes the confusion between grammaticalization and lexicalization such as is illustrated in Table 4.1 to two separate phenomena. The first is the ‘example’ confusion. In these cases, one and the same example may be said to

6

Both Lehmann and Krug ignore BE in BE going to.

Lexical Constructionalization

159

TABLE 4.1. Lexicalization, grammaticalization, or both? Example

A box model analysis

AAVE BE fixing to > finna (Rickford 1999: 6) Latin ad ipsum ‘to itself-acc’ > Italian adesso ‘now’ (Giacalone Ramat 1998: 122) English going to > gonna Vulgar Latin de ex de ‘from out of ’ > Old Castilian des de > Modern Castilian desde ‘since’ English want to > wanna English shall I, shall I > shilly-shally ‘to vacillate’ Latin cantare habeo > Fr. chanterai

Lxn, then Gzn Lxn, then Gzn Lxn, then Gzn Lxn, then Gzn Lxn Lxn Gzn

show signs of grammaticalization and lexicalization. The second is the ‘process’ confusion, whereby lexicalization has been equated with certain formal changes, despite those changes also being characteristic of grammaticalization (see Brinton and Traugott 2005: 110 for a summary of similar as well as different tendencies, given an increased reduction approach to both lexicalization and grammaticalization, but including semantic factors). A further problem with Lehmann’s definition of lexicalization as the process whereby something becomes lexical in the sense of becoming a unit, and the reference to the obliteration of the dependency relation between X and Y, is that there are clear cases where new constructional schemas come into being where a dependency relationship between X and Y develops (as in the case of compounding), or changes, but is not obliterated. Lightfoot (2011: 447) points out that there is gradience in the degree to which boundaries are reduced within lexical compounds; hence in lexicalization, the whole unit may not undergo change equally. For example, in Germanic compounds with man, the second constituent undergoes more reduction than the first (cf. marksman, p. 448). In terms of Booij’s distinctions, -man here is an affixoid (see 4.2 above). Another view assuming lexical reduction is expressed by Lipka when he says that lexicalization is: the phenomenon, whereby a complex lexeme once coined tends to become a single complete lexical unit, a simple lexeme. Through this process it loses the character of a syntagma to a greater or lesser degree. (Lipka 2002: 11)

This view that lexicalization involves the loss of syntagmatic properties ‘to a greater or lesser degreee’ is particularly interesting from a constructionalist point of view. It is certainly the case that some syntagms develop more unit-like properties. For example over the hill meaning ‘old’ is idiomatic and non-compositional; formally it

160

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

does not allow internal variation (e.g. *over many hills ‘really old’). But internal variation is possible in some cases like mother-in-law, which is pluralized in two ways, mothers-in-law and mother-in-laws. The first of these inflectional patterns treats the expression as less unit-like, and more analyzable, than the second. This is true in many other cases where certain expressions develop new variants, including the creation of idioms and snowclones (see section 4.7). While Lehmann (2002) distinguishes outputs of grammaticalization and lexicalization in terms of form, Wischer (2000) suggests that the difference is semantic: a new semantic component is added in lexicalization. Using the example of methinks, which became specialized as a pragmatic marker as the impersonal construction became obsolescent, she says: When a free collocation or an ordinary word-formation is lexicalized, a specific semantic component is added, so that the new lexical meaning differs from the former compositional meaning . . . When a linguistic term is grammaticalized, specific semantic components get lost and an implied categorial or operational meaning is foregrounded. (Wischer 2000: 364–365)

From our perspective, methinks is a frozen relic of an obsolescing impersonal schema. It was recruited to the class of epistemic adverbs and then to pragmatic marker function. Since it is adverbial we view it as a change toward more procedural, therefore grammatical, status. 4.3.2 Lexicalization as entry into the inventory In the previous section we have focused on attempts to distinguish lexicalization fairly sharply from grammaticalization, even if similarities or even a continuum between them are also assumed. If Lehmann’s idea of an inventory or ‘morphemicon’ with both lexical and grammatical morphemes is taken seriously, then lexicalization could be construed (along with grammaticalization) as ‘adoption into the inventory’ (Brinton and Traugott 2005: 90). In this case the inventory would include a mix of specific items such as is illustrated in (3): (3)

a. b. c. d. e.

OE lice ‘body’ > ly (adjective- or adverb-forming suffix) OE a (ge)lic ‘ever like’ > each OE gar|leac ‘spear|leek’ > garlic [[mother]N [[in]P [law]N]PP]N’ > [mother-in-law]N OE hand geweorc ‘hand worked’ > handiwork

On this approach all of the (semi-)contentful expressions that have to be learned— irrespective of how they come into being and of their structure—could be described as equally the product of lexicalization. This includes regular types of word-formation such as compounding (e.g. black|bird), or formation with affixoids like -able, and also the relatively random types of word-formation processes that will be discussed in 4.8, like clippings (tude < attitude), initialisms (BBC), and acronyms (NASA). We will

Lexical Constructionalization

161

argue that new clippings, initialisms, acronyms, etc. are also lexical constructionalizations, but ones that arise instantly, not gradually.7 The approach also brings together forms that are the product of fusion (like cupboard and hussy) and forms that are the product of separation (like ex and ology). For example, Norde (2009: 11) proposes that entry into the inventory (whether by unpredictable word-formation processes, or via fusion) should be considered lexicalization: ‘the reason for this is that changes such as clippings and conversions result in new lexemes, the meaning of which is not fully predictable from the (part of the) word from which they evolved, nor from the nature of the word-formation process that formed them’. However, perhaps in part because she focuses on lexicalization construed as counterevidence to grammaticalization (see 4.9 below), Norde excludes productive derivational word-formation from lexicalization. As we argue in 4.5, in construction grammar terms the constructicon is an inventory, but unlike the inventory proposed above, it is hierarchical (see e.g. Flickinger 1987, Booij 2010, Sag 2012). It therefore includes not only specific micro-constructions but also schemas, and these include word-formation patterns. Such patterns include productive, compositional methods of creating new lexical items such as compounding, whether endocentric (text|book) or exocentric (high|ball) and affixation, whether prefixation (en.slave) or suffixation (slave.ry). Considering not only the formal changes but the functions that new signs are assigned, we suggest below that the creation of derivational word-formation schemas is a kind of constructionalization. 4.3.3 Toward rethinking views of lexicalization in the light of lexical constructionalization As Cowie (1995) and more recently Lightfoot (2011: 448) point out, in the discussion of both lexicalization and grammaticalization the role of derivation is ignored, although often mentioned. When derivation is mentioned, it is often associated with grammaticalization; for reasons we develop in this chapter, we reject this approach, as it is inconsistent with the constructional framework we have adopted. Kuryłowicz defined grammaticalization as: the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g. from a derivative formant to an inflectional one. (Kuryłowicz 1975[1965]: 69; emphasis added)

citing the ‘[n]umerous instances’ of ‘the evolution collective (derivative) > plural (inflectional)’ (Kuryłowicz 1975[1965]: 52; italics original). Steps in the development of derivational morphology are often considered to be instances of grammaticalization because derivational morphemes are more abstract than the contentful items from 7 We recognize that blends (e.g. smoke + fog > smog) are rather different from other random wordformation processes. We discuss this in 4.8.

162

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

which they derive, and they evidence paradigmatic regularity. For example, Lehmann (1989) considers the reduction of Old High German haidus ‘form, shape’ to the derivational morpheme -heit that forms abstract nouns (see -hood) to be a case of grammaticalization. Haselow (2011) describes the development of dom and Booij (2010) of affixoids more generally as instances of grammaticalization. Booij writes: This rise of derivational morphemes is rightly qualified as grammaticalization (Aikhenvald 2007: 58), since these morphemes [including dom, ment and lyT&T] have become affixes. If situated at the endpoint of grammaticalization, these morphemes have abstract grammatical properties, but such bound morphemes may still have a rather specific meaning [ . . . ] Hence, it seems that there is a cline for such bound morphemes ranging from a more lexical to a more grammatical meaning, a pattern characteristic of grammaticalization. (Booij 2010: 75)

In a similar vein, Haselow suggests that since dom had not yet reached the full status of a suffix in the earliest periods of the English language, the low type frequencies may be explained with the fact that ‘-dom was only in the beginning of a grammaticalization process’ (Haselow 2011: 154). Most recently Boye and Harder (2012: 19) identify derivational morphology with grammatical status; they do not, however, link derivation to compounding status. However, as Blank’s (2001) definition of lexicalization1 cited in section 4.3 above shows, word-formation has also been associated with lexicalization (‘Lexicalization1 is a process by which complex word-formations . . . become syntactically and semantically fixed entries’). We adopt this approach within the framework of constructionalization for outputs of word-formation, as we demonstrate in sections 4.4 and 4.5 below (see also Trips 2009 in her study of -hood, -dom, and -ship).8 Other ways of thinking about types of lexical change include Bauer’s (1983) proposal that lexicalization can be split into types depending on linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax). Bauer suggests that phonological lexicalization may involve a shift in stress patterns (black|board) or reduction of a syllable (see reduction of fam in infamous vs. famous). The development of linking elements (e.g. s in catseye, kinsman) can be taken as diagnostic of morphological lexicalization. Atypical syntactic patterns (observed, for instance in the development of exocentric compounds like pick|pocket) serve as instances of syntactic lexicalization.9 But Bauer (1983) goes on to say that there are many cases of ‘mixed lexicalizations’, which involve phonological as well as morphological changes, and result in demotivation and development of atomic lexical items like husband (see also Wischer 2000). Such mixed patterns are typical of the kind of lexical constructionalization that produces atomic constructions, as discussed in section 4.6 below. 8

Thanks to Martin Hilpert for drawing our attention to this reference. While the syntax is typical with respect to the typology of VO word order of PDE, with respect to word-formation it is unusual (contrast the more regular OV patterns in manhunt, watchmaker, skyscraper). 9

Lexical Constructionalization

163

Since a constructional approach is not founded in a view of change as reduction, lexicalization can, like grammaticalization, be rethought, and embedded within the larger project of constructionalization and constructional changes. As a first step, a key consideration should not be whether an element is either lexical or grammatical, but whether the output of change is primarily schematic or specific, complex or atomic, and primarily contentful or primarily procedural. Furthermore, gradience in between all these pairs must be recognized. We agree with Lehmann that the development of new contentful constructions can involve the obliteration of a dependency relationship between X and Y, but we consider this to be a feature of other types of constructionalization as well. Further, we note that both grammatical and lexical items can be complex (BE going to [even when reduced to BE gonna], and strawberry, moveable) or atomic (cf. -s ‘plural’, must, and lord, garlic). As mentioned in the preceding section, the notion of an ‘inventory’ has affinities with that of the constructicon. But the constructicon is not an undifferentiated list. Rather it is a network of hierarchized form-meaning pairings, some of them schematic, some atomic, some with primarily procedural, grammatical characteristics, and some with primarily contentful, lexical ones. One of the most important aspects of the constructional approach to lexical change is that, because it embraces schemas as well as micro-constructions, it allows us to consider word-formation and the creation of idioms, and so pay attention to schematic patterns and not only idiosyncratic aspects of the development of contentful expressions. The rise, persistence and loss of schematic word-formation patterns involves changes in productivity, schematicity, and compositionality. These are discussed in the next section.

4.4 Changing productivity, schematicity, and compositionality in lexical constructionalization As discussed in chapter 3.3, directionality in constructional change has been conceptualized in terms of variation in the productivity, schematicity and compositionality of a construction. In his 2004 paper on lexicalization and grammaticalization, and the commonalities they share (in that they start out from spontaneous and productive combinations and are similar processes of conventionalization), Himmelmann (2004: 43) recognizes that there may be some expansion in lexicalization, specifically metaphorical extension of meaning. But since he views lexicalization primarily as univerbation, he identifies reduction in host-classes and loss of generality in meaning (specification of meaning) as typical of lexicalization (pp. 35–36). Building on Himmelmann (2004) and Brinton and Traugott (2005), both of which conceptualize lexicalization as reduction, in earlier work on constructionalization, Trousdale (2008b, c, 2010, 2012a), suggested the following differences between grammatical and lexical constructionalization:

164

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(a) Grammatical constructionalization involves increase in productivity and schematicity, but decrease in compositionality. (b) Lexical constructionalization involves decrease in all three areas. As we will show in the remainder of this chapter, Trousdale’s earlier view was correct for lexicalization defined as reduction (LR), but incorrect for lexical constructionalization in the model of change that we argue for here. Particularly, as hinted at in section 4.2, where the notion of morphological schemas was introduced, it is important to recognize that the constructionalization of lexical schemas involves increase in schematicity and productivity. When word-formation patterns arise there is increase in schematicity. Word-formation patterns may be high or low in productivity, but as long as they continue as to be used as schemas on which new words are patterned, there is always some productivity and lexical expansion (LE). This expansion occurs in word-formation at the schema level. Loss of compositionality is an issue in cases where particular members of a schema lose their association with the schema and undergo reductions of various kinds, especially morpheme boundary loss. LR occurs at the level of individual constructions. In this section, we lay out the central issues concerning directionality in the creation of lexical constructions, and in sections 4.5 and 4.6, examine the development of schematic and atomic and lexical constructions respectively in more detail. 4.4.1 Productivity The issue of productivity in the development of lexical constructions is possibly one of the clearest ways in which the constructional approach adopted in this book differs from traditional accounts of lexicalization. Bauer and Huddleston (2002: 1629) see synchronic lexicalization as the ‘converse’ of productivity because they consider lexicalized words to be frozen forms that were once analyzable but are no longer so. Our constructional approach focuses on change not synchrony, and recognizes that some new lexical micro-constructions may be assembled into schemas (see next section) and may to different degrees be the product of newly productive schemas. Consider first the case of compounding, and the creation of new nominal (referring) lexical constructions. Endocentric compounds are organized in terms of a default inheritance network. For example, a linguistics|society is a kind of ‘society’; a student|linguistics|society is a kind of ‘linguistics society’, a black|board is a kind of board, a bullet|hole is a kind of hole, a rattle|snake a kind of snake, and so on (cf. section 4.2 above).10 In each case, the modifying element gives further specification in relation to the determinatum, but the general properties are inherited from the most general concept downwards. 10

English spelling is notoriously inconsistent with respect to treating compounds as separate words, hyphenated words, or as a single word. Differences may reflect length of use, prescriptivism, or other factors, but are independent of form-meaning pairing.

Lexical Constructionalization

165

This is not the case with exocentric compounds: a dread|nought is not a kind of nought or dread but a kind of battleship, and a big|head (‘person who thinks too highly of him-/herself ’) is neither a head nor big. The idiosyncrasies associated with the exocentric schema (note, the schema, not the various instances) mean that the schema does not in PDE lend itself to productivity to the degree that the endocentric compounding schema does. There may therefore be considerable difference in degree of productivity depending on the internal organization of the schema. As for affixoids like -able, -dom, in a constructional model—like the compounding schemas discussed above—these too form schemas with a stem. As will be shown in sections 4.5 and 4.6, we see the notion of the morphological schema (Booij 2010, 2013) as critical for an understanding of the development of both complex and atomic lexical constructions. The schemas allow us to track the development of a free form to a determinatum in a compound, to an affixoid, to an affix, and beyond. 4.4.2 Schematicity Schemas can either grow or contract in lexical constructionalization. In some cases, a new word-formation (sub)schema comes into being as a result of lexical constructionalization—here schematicity has increased, and slots have developed. By contrast, when an existing word-formation (sub)schema becomes unproductive, isolating particular instances many of which may fall into disuse, formal changes (such as fusion and coalescence) may occur. An example of this is the development of modern English forms such as buxom and lissome, which became isolated from the less productive [[X-some] $ [‘characterized by X’]] schema, and underwent semantic change (buxom is no longer associated with bending (cf. OE bugan)). In the case of schema-development, the word-formation schema serves as an attractor set for the production of new contentful constructions and expansion occurs. An example is the development of the suffix. gate to refer to some sort of scandal (Booij 2010: 90).11 The original micro-construction was Watergate, and Booij suggests that early coinings may be based on analogy to that form. The OED ( gate, 9. comb. form) records forms such as Volgagate, Dallasgate and Koreagate, all referring to a scandal, from as early as 1973. Booij (2010: 90) suggests that the establishment of a set of related forms may lead the language user to produce a (sub)schema that sanctions further new constructions. This new schema is a new word-formation pattern that serves as an abstract template above and beyond analogization to particular exemplars. It may be considered to be a case of the constructionalization of a (sub)schema.

In 1972 the Republican Nixon administration in the USA attempted to cover up a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., an event known as ‘the Watergate scandal’. 11

166

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Patterns are not only created, they are also lost or lose members. Detachment from a (sub)schema may result in the neoanalysis of form and meaning. For instance, many compounds are formed with an adjective as the determinant and a noun as the determinatum (e.g. blackboard and bighead). One such adjective which has been used as the determinant in compounds is holy. In many cases, such compounds are relatively transparent, although conventional (e.g. holy|water); in other cases however, the schema no longer applies, and the particular instances are treated not as compounds, but as monomorphemes (e.g. halibut < halig|butte ‘holy|flatfish’; holiday < halig|dæg ‘holy|day’). In these cases a second constructionalization has occurred, where both form and meaning change as a result of LR, as will be more fully discussed in section 4.6. 4.4.3 Compositionality The development of lexical schemas is intimately connected not only with productivity and schematicity, but also with compositionality. Questions about the compositionality of apparently syntactic strings was a major impetus for work on constructions, going back to the 1980s (e.g. Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988). As Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow (1994) showed, certain idioms are non-compositional with respect to the distribution of the meaning of the whole across the meaning of the parts. Some of these idioms have a procedural function (e.g. in fact, indeed); some have contentful semantics (e.g. kith and kin (Fillmore, Kay, and O’Connor 1988)). As in work in cognitive linguistics more generally, Taylor suggests that: [s]trict compositionality is rarely, if ever, encountered. Most expressions (I am tempted to say: all expressions), when interpreted in the context in which they are uttered, are non-compositional to some degree. (Taylor 2002: 550, emphasis original)

The existence of a gradient is demonstrable by considering instances from the same subschema. For example, spring|water means ‘water from a spring’, but toilet| water may mean ‘scented liquid’, not ‘water from a toilet’. Issues of inheritance and overrides (see 4.2 above) come into play here. The conventional meaning of the subschema [[X|water] $ [‘water in or from X’]], as in bath|water, tap|water and spring|water is overridden in particular cases like toilet|water ‘perfume’ and tonic| water ‘carbonated beverage flavoured with quinine’. An interesting case of degrees of compositionality is provided by [parts of X] and [X-parts]. Both parts of the body and body|parts exist, but they do not mean the same thing. Parts of the body is compositional, and refers to entities that can be found by police in fridges, dumpsters, and woods. These may or may not be body|parts. Body|parts are names of many parts of the body (e.g. legs, arms, head), but not all (e.g. hair) when construed as part of a whole body. Nevertheless, some parts of the body that one could name are not (usually) referred to as body|parts (e.g. under|arm) (Zwicky 2012). Body|parts is

Lexical Constructionalization

167

therefore less compositional than parts of the body. A different situation occurs in the case of parts of speech. This is a phrase with [parts of X] structure, but a considerably less compositional meaning than parts of the body, since speech is not obviously partitioned into e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives. In this case there is no *speech|parts equivalent.12 The asymmetry between the two examples here may in part have arisen because parts of speech is a metalinguistic term used and entrenched primarily among language-users concerned with grammars and linguistic research. Speech|parts used with reference to expressions belonging to certain grammatical categories seems comical because it assumes referent is familiar and well known. The tradename SpeechParts for educational software featuring instruction in language arts presumably draws on this implicature of familiarity and fame. Consistent with other aspects of constructional change espoused in this book, we propose that the synchronic gradient of compositionality is a consequence of gradualness in the development of new micro-construction and schemas, even though the micro-changes themselves are discrete. There are some cases of lexical constructionalization in which compositionality unambiguously decreases. These are cases where a simplex/atomic micro-construction is created as a result of a series of neoanalyses such that the new node is no longer associated with a complex schema. This is discussed in detail in section 4.6 below; here we simply observe that while a compound such as OE gar|leac ‘spear|leek’ may be at least partly motivated in the sense of de Saussure (1959[1916]) by virtue of its being associated with a subschema [[X|leac] $ [‘leek with features associated with X’]], no such motivation exists with garlic. For contemporary speakers of the language, garlic, like paper and dog, must be learned as a non-compositional unit. We suggest that where lexical constructionalization can be construed as LR, compositionality decreases. The issue of compositionality is also relevant in cases of instantaneous type node creation, such as word-formations like conversions e.g. to window (drawing on a schema that ‘converts’ a noun into a verb, or a verb into a noun, etc.) (see section 4.8). As Clark and Clark (1979) have observed, in the case of conversions, the existence of a schema (with a conventional meaning, however general) is insufficient to provide the meaning of the newly created micro-construction. Thus the verb dust may mean ‘to remove dust’ (he dusted the bookshelf ) or ‘to add something akin to dust’ (he dusted the birthday cake, she dusted for fingerprints); the verb google means ‘to search for something on the internet’, typically though not necessarily via Google: (4)

This cartoon was one of the first hits when I Googled “hegemony” on Yahoo. (http://bcbrooks.blogspot.co.uk/2010_10_01_archive.html; accessed 20 November 2012) 12

Thanks to Francesca Masini for this example.

168

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

On the other hand, the verb facebook means ‘to contact someone via facebook’. Novel micro-constructions like these are contentful, and denote event processes. As such they are lexical micro-constructions. But any compositional meaning which we might infer in such a case derives from the structures from which it inherits. In the next two sections we show how lexical (sub)schemas can arise, specifically word-formation strategies for the creation of abstract nominals (4.5). This is an example of how derivational word-formation can be seen as constructionalization and constructional expansion. Then we show how atomic lexical constructions may arise out of compounds and derivational word-formations (4.6). Many of these are also constructionalizations, but unlike the first set of changes, they involve loss. The emergence of atomic lexical constructions from complex ones is what is traditionally known as lexicalization.

4.5 The development of lexical (sub)schemas Here we consider the emergence of subschemas of compounds and their subsequent development. Since a general schema for compounding has been attested since the time of the earliest English documents, we will not be discussing the development of compounding here. In OE poetry noun-noun compounds of varying degrees of compositionality are found. All differ from phrasal use because there is no morphological case showing the relationship between the two nouns, and they typically appear to have a more restricted meaning than the freer phrase, although this is harder to assess. There are several examples of compounds in Cædmon’s Hymn, a poem apparently composed in the late seventh century and cited by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History (dated 731). Bede translated the poem into Latin, but there are various manuscript versions in OE. Among compounds are: heofon|ric ‘heaven|kingdom, heavenly kingdom’, wuldor| fæder ‘glory|father, God’, monn|cynn ‘man|kin, mankind’. In each case the first N in the phrasal version would have been marked by genitive case in a phrase (heofen.es rice, wuldr.es fæder, monn.es cynn), so we know that heofonric, wuldorfæder, and monncynn are formally compounds; they appear to have a more particularized meaning as well. In some cases both the phrase and a compound may appear in the same text. For example, Broz (2011: 116) cites eorl.a gestreon ‘earls.GEN treasure’ and eorl|gestreon ‘earl|treasure’ in Beowulf lines 3163 and 2244 respectively. These nominal compounds are endocentric and in each case N1 specifies N2. They are constructions based on a schema of the type in (5) (where R means ‘relation’) (based on Booij 2010: 17):13 (5)

[[[N]Nk [N]i]Nj $ [[SEMi with type-R to SEMk]ENTITY]j]

13 This is to be read as follows: a formal compound Nk + Ni (where k, i are indexed to the meaning) is associated with a meaning SEMi of Ni to which SEMk of Nk is related.

Lexical Constructionalization

169

In other compounds the meaning may be totally non-compositional and figurative (such compounds are known as ‘kennings’).14 Well-known examples from Beowulf are ban|hus ‘bone|house, body’ (l. 2508), guð|wine ‘war|friend, sword’ (l. 1810), woruld|candel ‘world|lantern, sun’ (l. 1965). Many of the examples are hapax legomena. To the extent that these compounds were conventionalized they illustrate constructionalization of micro-constructions. We can conclude that in these cases there was a very general NN compounding schema with no clearly identifiable subschemas consisting of several related construction-types. However, in other cases we can observe the rise of subschemas out of compound micro-constructions: the second noun becomes the host for a productive set of stems. What enables this shift from an individual compound micro-construction, e.g. martyr|dom ‘martyrdom’ to a productive (sub)schema is increase in type frequency correlated with semantic generalization (Trips 2009: 245) and affixoiding. Since a formnew-meaningnew complex (sub)schema has arisen through a series of changes, this is lexical constructionalization at the schematic level. The subsequent history of the fixed element (formerly the second noun, e.g. dom ‘judgment, condition’, had ‘rank, condition’) in such subschemas ranges from relatively high productivity with respect to the stem (e.g. -hood) ultimately to obsolescence. Sometimes there is retention of the original lexical item. For example, doom is still an independent word in English, with a more restricted meaning than in earlier times (‘bad fate’ rather than ‘judgment’). In other cases it does not. For example, OE had ‘condition’, did not survive as an independent lexical item.15 Hood and dom came to be used productively enough to be considered to be affixoidal derivational word-formations in ME that retain some, but not all, of their meaning. Recall that affixoids have become similar to affixes in having a specialized meaning when embedded in compounds. They are not yet affixes because they correspond to lexemes, that is, unbound forms, but their meaning differs from that when used as independent lexemes. (Booij 2010: 57)

The meaning change is minimal, and since the degree of bondedness does not appear to change, we consider affixoiding to be a post-constructionalization lexical constructional change at the micro-constructional level. However, when a new wordformation (sub)schema arises, enabled by the generalization of the meaning, there is constructionalization at the level of the schema. Exactly when a particular element in a compound micro-construction comes to be an affixoid and when an affixoid becomes a suffix is often debatable. For example, writing about OE derivational forms Kastovsky (1992: 386–387) draws attention to 14

Broz (2011) analyzes kennings in terms of Geeraerts’s (2002) approach to syntagmatic and paradigmatic aspects of form and meaning in compounds and idioms. 15 ‘Hood is a clipping of neighborhood with affixal .hood.

170

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

arguments about whether the OE noun had ‘state, rank, condition’ forms a compound or a suffix. In this chapter we do not attempt to identify exact points at which the changes occurred—this would be impossible given the sparsity of data. The data and the diachronic account of that data in this section generalize over details and draw heavily on Haselow (2011) for OE and the first period of ME, and Dalton-Puffer (1996) for all of ME. Details of ratios of types to tokens in the data bases they used are provided by both authors.16 We have recast aspects of the discussion in the literature in constructional terms. In these terms, evidence for constructionalization of a (sub)schema is provided by the attestation of significant increases in type-constructions. 4.5.1 OE dom Our first example concerns the use of the OE lexical micro-construction [[dom] $ [‘doom, judgment, authority to judge’]] in compounds and its subsequent history. As Haselow (2011) observes, the history of dom in English is a complex one. Its complexity illustrates nicely the gradient properties of constructions at particular synchronic stages, the gradual nature of the development of new patterns, and the fact that constructionalization can occur at the levels of both micro-constructions and schemas. Historically a noun with a long vowel, even in the OE period dom regularly occurred as the right (‘determinatum’) element of a compound, and progressively changed its status into that of a suffix by adopting a more abstract, categorical meaning and undergoing phonological reduction. It is therefore difficult to determine a cut-off point which separates formations with dom being compounds from those being genuine derivatives. (Haselow 2011: 112)

The following examples illustrate dom used as a noun (6a) and as a determinatum in a compound in (6b): (6)

a. for ðam ðe hit is Godes dom for that that it is God.GEN law.NOM ‘because it is God’s law’ (Deut (c1000 OE Heptateuch) B 8. 1.4.5 [DOEC]) b. for ðan þe he æfter cristes þrowunge ærest for that that he after Christ.GEN suffering first martyr|dom geðrowade martyr|dom suffered ‘because he was the first to suffer martyrdom after Christ’s suffering’ (c1000 ÆCHom I.3 [DOEC])

There is clearly a dependency relationship between X and dom in these examples. In (6a) it is syntactic (see .es genitive) and in (6b) it is a word-formation 16 An important additional resource is Trips (2009), which unfortunately came to our attention too late to be incorporated extensively. Trips’s study encompasses ModE as well as the earlier periods.

Lexical Constructionalization

171

determinant-determinatum dependency (there is no case). However, in an example like (7) it is not possible to tell the status of dom as freo would not have overt case in a syntactic phrase here; nevertheless it seems plausible that there was a dependency relation here too. (7)

Đæt is se freodom ðætte mon mot don ðæt that is the freedom.NOM that man.NOM may.3S do.INF that he wile. he want.3SPres ‘That is freedom, that a man may do as he will’. (c890 Boethius B.9.3.2 [DOEC])

We posit that each new compound micro-construction with dom is to be considered a constructionalization. Although we have little access to the phonology, from their subsequent history it is probable that a phonological doublet arose between an independent form with a stressed (long) vowel, the source of ModE doom, and a less stressed vowel which in the ME period was reduced to schwa, the source of the ModE .dom. We may note that the eventual development of e.g. Christendom,17 freedom are examples of what Lehmann (2002) would presumably call lexicalization, but it does not show ‘obliteration of boundaries’ since .dom and the stems are still analyzable. As the examples show, the first element of a compound in dom OE could be either an adjective (freodom) or a noun (martyrdom). Dietz (2007) suggests that ‘suffix-like’ (what we call ‘affixoid-like’) functions of -dom are attested with adjectives around the year 900 and some fifty years later with nouns denoting attributes of persons, e.g. martyr-dom ‘martyrdom’, þeow-dom ‘servitude’. He notes that about two thousand tokens of the noun dom appear in OE, and about fifty types with apparent ‘affixal’ (our ‘affixoidal’) -dom. Of these wis-dom is the most frequent (over nine hundred tokens). In his more limited OE corpus Haselow (2011: 154) finds twenty-two types. Compared to the two hundred and twenty types with the affix .ness ‘quality of ’ that he finds in the same corpus (p. 161), Haselow considers this to be low type frequency and concludes that a dom schema was not especially well entrenched. Rather, the high token frequency relates to individual micro-constructions like wisdom ‘wisdom’, cristendom ‘christianity’ and martyrdom ‘martyrdom’: ‘the occurrence of -dom as the second element in compounds was restricted to a small number of highly frequent formations’ (Haselow 2011: 152). While the OE noun dom has a range of meanings including, but not limited to, ‘doom’, ‘dignity’, ‘power’, and ‘choice’, the central meaning in terms of the development of the affixoidal schema (and subsequently the affix) is ‘state’ or ‘condition’, as in (8): 17 Christendom is now understood as a geopolitical term; in OE it referred mainly to Christianity, i.e. belief. The change is a semantic constructional change.

172 (8)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Hi on dryhtlicestum dome lifdon. they in lord-like.SUPER.DAT condition.DAT lived ‘They lived in a most lord-like condition’. (Seafarer 85 [DOEC; Haselow 2011: 75])

It is relevant here that the most general meaning is the one that is central for affixoiding and the development of the word-formation schema; compare (8), where it means ‘condition’, with (6a) above, where it means ‘law’. This is a distributional expansion typical of gradual developments. Members of this subset have affixoidal morphology [X-dom] and the meaning is restricted (with nominals it is to abstract ‘condition’, with adjectives to ‘quality’, see Dalton-Puffer 1996: 77). Generalizing over gradual changes, and limiting ourselves to nominal constructions, we suggest that by the end of the tenth century an affixoidal subschema of the compound construction had arisen, as in (9): (9)

[[[X]Nk [-dom]i]Nj $ [[conditioni with relation R to SEMk]ENTITY]j]

Note that the development of a schematic pattern with the affixoid -dom is considered to be a constructionalization at the schematic level resulting from speakers generalizing over individual micro-constructions and abducing a pattern.18 As mentioned in 4.3.3, both Haselow and Booij have suggested that the development of dom is a case of grammaticalization. However, there does not appear to be development of any procedural or deictic function; rather we see the creation of abstract but contentful semantics associated with referring constructions, albeit abstract ones. Crucially, the output construction—the lexical schema—is precisely that, a schema which sanctions new referring constructions, not new procedural constructions. In the later history of dom, we observe further patterns that are consistent with post-constructionalization constructional changes, in this case reorganization of the schemas as -dom became further generalized semantically and reduced phonologically eventually giving rise to the affix .dom. The affixal status of .dom allowed the schema to be reorganized and linked with the nominal derivational schemas. In the later history of dom there was also loss of members of the schema. Dalton-Puffer finds a small array of fairly fixed expressions in frequent use without much spontaneous productivity elsewhere . . . For both deadjectival and denominal formations the picture is one of stagnation and eventual decline. (Dalton-Puffer 1996: 76)

This is host-class reduction and obsolescence, both constructional changes (see further 4.6). Part of the reason for this host-class reduction, as we will see in 4.5.3, is probably the relatively large set of choices in a neighbouring part of the network

18 ‘Abduction’ refers to logical inference from data interpretation to a hypothesis accounting for the data. It was introduced from logic into historical linguistics by Andersen (1973).

Lexical Constructionalization

173

with other expressions that were developing as affixoids and suffixes, and that also had a meaning similar to ‘state or condition’. For example, Haselow (2011: 152) says that in OE stems with -dom often had ‘parallel forms’ or variants with had, scipe, and ness, usually with little difference in meaning.19 An exception is woh|dom ‘misjudgment’ ~ woh.ness ‘perfidy’. Furthermore, its weak generative power (the low type frequency that Haselow (p. 154) observes throughout the period) may have contributed to its type frequency remaining constant in the OE and ME subperiods. 4.5.2 OE ræden There were two other OE micro-constructions with a meaning ‘condition’, like dom: scipe and ræden. Scipe (originally a noun meaning ‘condition, state, office’, but appearing only as an affixoid/suffix in OE, see OED and Bosworth-Toller) was better established as a productive part of a word-formation pattern than either dom or ræden. While Haselow (2011: 166) regards scipe as a suffix in words like freondscipe ‘friendship’, we consider it to be an affixoid. It fulfils Booij’s criterion for affixoidal status because there is a corresponding cognate lexical verb scyppan ‘to create’ (see German schaffen ‘shape, create’). It occurs with a handful of adjective bases, but prototypically the schema is nominal as in (10): (10)

[[[X]Nk [-scipe]i]nj $ [[conditioni with relation R to SEMk]ENTITY]j]

By contrast, ræden was not an affixoid in OE, but rather formed compounds referring to the judicial sphere, or particular social relations. Examples provided by Haselow (2011: 165) for the judicial sphere include burh|ræden ‘civil|right’ and mann| ræden ‘man|contract, service’, and for social relations feond|ræden ‘enmity’, freond| ræden ‘friendship’. As an independent lexical item ræden is very rare, and used mainly as a gloss for Latin conditio ‘condition’, though some other examples are attested, as in (11): (11)

hæfdon . . . sume mid aþum gefæstnod, þæt hi on hyre had . . . some with oaths secured, that they in their rædenne beon woldon. service be would ‘had made some swear that they would be in service to them’. (918 Chron C [DOEC])

More critically for this discussion, the existence of derived forms like un.ræden ‘illadvised action’ and sam.ræden ‘harmonious living together’ is diagnostic of the 19 .ness is etymologically not a noun, and appears to have been an affix from OE on. The kind of variation posited here at this period between elements that are affixoids (-dom) or affixes (.ness) suggests that speakers may have had little awareness of the fine distinctions made here between affixoiding and affixing.

174

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

existence of an independent lexical item, as suffixes cannot be the base for derivation (Dietz 2007: 142). Thus in the OE period there existed an independent form ræden with a range of meanings, such as ‘condition, estimation, rule’ (Haselow 2011: 164), and a determinatum in a compound. When compound micro-constructions in |ræden developed, these were constructionalizations: there is still semantic compositionality, but a degree of conventionality is associated with the use of the schema to refer to judicial matters. Dietz (2007: 143, 146) suggests that the development of compounds with stems referring to social relations may have been the entry-point for ‘suffixation’, with further generalization of meaning. This was probably a brief stage of affixoiding enabling the constructionalization of a subschema of the compounding construction, since the entire compound is abstract. The new subschema is represented in (12): (12)

[[[X]Nk [-ræden]i]Nj $ [[conditioni with relation R to SEMk]ENTITY]j]

The new derivational affixoids sanctioned by the schema in (12) have strong functional overlaps with -scipe and .ness. The latter is exemplified in: (13) Do eac swa se cristena mann beo him unscæðþig do also as the Christian man be he.DAT unharming & bylewite & lufige an.nysse & broðor-rædene and humble and love oneness and brotherhood ‘Do also as the Christian man, be unharmful to him, and humble and love unity, and brotherhood’. (c1000 ÆCHom I.xi. [DOEC])20 At this point we have host-class expansion but the productivity of the schema is weak, possibly because of the number of other schemas in the network with similar meaning, as discussed in the next section. In fact, in ME -rede (< -ræden) is extremely limited (Dalton-Puffer 1996 finds only four types in the Helsinki data). The obsolescence of (12) as a word-formation schema isolated particular micro-constructions and in PDE there are now only two relics: kindred, and hatred. The discussion of the use of -dom and -ræden as affixoids has focused on the development of lexical schemas. We have proposed that in the cases discussed: (a) Initially compound constructs are conventionalized and constructionalized as micro-construction types (e.g. freodom, martyrdom, freondræden). (b) Gradually the second element of the compound may become an affixoid with bleached and abstract meaning; and a template abduced by generalization over micro-construction-types arises. This is constructionalization of a subschema, which is followed by productive addition of compounds to the subschema.

20 DOEC records several prosody markings in this passage. They have been deleted to avoid confusion with the morphological notation.

Lexical Constructionalization

175

As we show in section 4.6 affixoidal micro-constructions sanctioned by a subschema may be reduced to atomic micro-constructions; this is a formal constructional change. Furthermore, as we argue in 4.8, the specific micro-constructions that are sanctioned by the rise of schemas such as the affixoiding schema and the -dom and -ræden subschemas occur instantaneously once a (sub)schema has come into being, e.g. ADJ wis ‘wise’ + dom was presumably created instantaneously as a fullfledged N, just as blog + er recently became a N referring to someone who blogs, instantaneously without intermediate, gradual changes. However, the (sub)schemas themselves arise gradually. In the next section we show that templates with the affixoids -dom and -ræden, both of which sanctioned word-formation of nominals with the abstract meaning ‘condition’ were only part of a set of schemas with similar meaning. The wealth of choices may have resulted in changes in the productivity of the subschemas. 4.5.3 Choices among nominal affixoids in OE and ME As discussed at some length by Dalton-Puffer (1996), Trips (2009), and to some extent by Haselow (2011), the histories of derivational affixes cannot be understood by themselves. In OE -dom was only one of a larger set of abstract nominal derivational affixoids. Others were -scipe, -had, and -lac. There were also suffixes without lexical sources such as .ness, .th, and .ung. In ME additionally there were -rede (< -ræden) and borrowings from French. Dalton-Puffer discusses, among others, .(a)cioun, .acy, .age, .aunce, .erie, .ite, .ment, all of which were used with different degrees of productivity and with different bases to form abstract nouns, e.g. devotion, conspiracy, marriage, vengeance, robbery, curiosity, and commencement (in their modern spellings) respectively. The main choices21 in ME among abstract nominal affixoids appears to have been between -dom, -rede, -ship (< -scipe), and -had (ME -hede). All were originally relational nouns (Trips 2009: 201) referring to the office, rank, state, or condition of the base X. Over time they came to be restricted to nominal bases ‘predominantly denoting persons’ (p. 204), such as frend ‘friend’. They had variable affinities with adjective bases as well. Dalton-Puffer (1996: 257–258) shows that only these affixoids (and the borrowing -ite ‘-ity’, which is not discussed here as it had mainly adjectival bases) mapped onto collectives with the meaning ‘entity denoting a state or condition, being, or essence’. Given its already low type frequency, -rede appears to have been the first to decline. The trajectory is typical: a subschema with low type frequency and low token frequency is substituted by more productive suffixes. For example brother-redde, which alternated already in OE with -scipe as in We prefer the term ‘choice’ to a more frequently used term ‘competition’, on grounds that ‘choice’ is a usage-based concept, whereas ‘competition’ suggests that constructions have a life of their own independent of speakers. 21

176

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

broþor-ræden ~ broþor-scipe ‘brotherhood’, was replaced by brother-hood; freondræden, which alternated with freond-scipe, was replaced by it (Haselow 2011: 165). The origin of hede is debated. Because -hede is preferred with adjectives while OE -had is preferred with nouns, a direct source in the noun had is not universally accepted. However, Dalton-Puffer (1996: 78) notes that while .ness occurs with verb bases in earlier ME, it is productive almost exclusively with adjectives by later ME. She concludes that -hede is in all likelihood related to the noun had ‘degree, rank, condition, state’ (cf. German -heit), and we agree. In OE -had alternated with -dom, as in cyne-had ~ cyne-dom ‘dominion, power of the king’. In ME we find mainly -hede, which increased in type frequency throughout ME but was eventually replaced by -hood, cf. knyght-hede ~ knighthood, man-hede ~ man-hood. Only a few forms in -head remain. According to the OED (head, -head suffix), they are ‘e.g. godhead, maidenhead (distinguished from godhood, maidenhood)’. While -head obsolesced, -hood became an affix and very productive: Being a living suffix, -hood can be affixed at will to almost any word denoting a person or concrete thing, and to many adjectives, to express condition or state, so that the number of these derivatives is indefinite. Nonce-formations are numerous. (OED hood 5)

Scipe with personal bases means ‘state, condition’, as in OE leodscipe ‘a people, nation’, friendship, kinship. Dalton-Puffer (1996: 86–87) notes that it was stable throughout ME, and that formations tend to be rather transparent (compositional). It is frequently used in PDE with routinized respectful designations (your ladyship, Master of Artship) but the only productive use (as an affix in PDE) is with bases denoting a professional agent (penman.ship, stateman.ship) (Marchand 1969: 345–346). As these examples attest, the base is usually complex with -man. As far as dom is concerned, it declined in type frequency during ME but is still alive (as an affix). Marchand (1969: 263) notes that it was used with ‘a pronounced pejorative character’ from about 1800 on. Examples include bumble.dom, gangster. dom, and official.dom. This is confirmed by Trips (2009), who provides evidence that .dom in the meaning ‘realm of ’ is still relatively productive in PDE and cites several hapaxes from BNC (p. 119), many of them with pejorative bases, e.g. hack.dom, tramp.dom, slob.dom. She also notes a recent tendency to combine older forms in .dom with prefixes like anti., post., quasi., as in semi.star.dom, quasi.free.dom. In sum, if we consider only the four affixoids mentioned here, ignoring other derivational morphemes available to form abstract Ns such as .ness, as well as the development of abstract Ns with adjective bases, we get the picture in Table 4.2 of type robustness.22 All but the first continue to be used as affixes, with .hood now dominant in this set. Dalton-Puffer (1996: 125) suggests that their co-survival may have been supported by a partial of division of semantic labour in ME: 22

In Table 4.2 mtf stands for ‘moderately type frequent’, tf for ‘type frequent’, obs for ‘obsolescing’.

Lexical Constructionalization

177

TABLE 4.2. Relative frequency of four affixoids

-ræden -scipe -dom -had

OE

ME

ModE

rare mtf tf mtf

obs mtf mtf -hede mtf

— mtf mtf -hood tf

(14) ship: ‘social status of N’ dom: ‘jurisdiction of a N, territory of a N’ hede: ‘abstract or inner qualities making up a N’ Over time these restrictions have been relaxed.

4.6 The development of atomic lexical constructions In this section we discuss particular examples of new atomic lexical constructions arising out of former complex micro-constructions. Most are lexical constructionalizations at the micro-construction level involving change in meanings as well as form (as we have seen, constructionalization may recur), but a few are constructional changes involving reduction of form only. Recall that atomic constructions are contrasted with complex constructions in that the former are non-compositional. However, we will see that the development of atomic lexical constructions is gradual and that synchronically there is a gradient from more to less compositional. The developments discussed here are of the type often cited in traditional accounts of lexicalization, largely because of the following: (a) A dependency relationship that existed between two items (the base and the derivation) is obliterated (cf. Lehmann 2002). (b) The two elements of a construction, whether schematic or specific, are coalesced, and the phonological boundary between the two forms is erased, leading to fusion. (c) There is loss of accessible figurative meaning. (d) The output of the process is an unanalyzable whole that has to be independently learned by the language user. We discuss a number of cases where words that historically may have been associated with a relatively compositional schema such as (9) for -dom and (12) for -ræden come to be non-compositional. We have already mentioned that with the obsolescence of -ræden only two etymologically original forms survived into PDE: kindred and hatred. These are now noncompositional atomic referring micro-constructions that are relics from the loss of the subschema that sanctioned them.

178

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Typically, dissociation from a subschema is gradual, in the sense that one type after another either ceases to be used or is neoanalyzed in such a way that it no longer conforms to the partially open slots of the schema. Dalton-Puffer (1996) points out that although the denominal schemas with -dom, -hede, and -scipe discussed in the preceding section remained relatively compositional (and schematic), some of the members of the deadjectival schemas with the same derivational affixes are more subject to reduction, notably wisdom (not *wisedom), and worship (< worth ‘worth’A + -scipe). These became separated from their schemas, perhaps owing to token frequent use. In some cases the gradualness of historical disassociation from a schema is reflected in PDE gradience. We illustrate this with the development of the suffix .lian from OE to .le in EModE. In some cases a verb base came to be used with .le after the OE period (e.g. crump, wrig), in some cases a suffix has been neoanalyzed as part of the stem (with accompanying change in meaning) and relationship within the schema has been lost. Examples in (15) illustrate a contemporary gradient from an earlier partially compositional schema (suggested by the morphological structure of OE hand.lian) to contemporary atomic and less compositional micro-constructions (nestle, dazzle): (15)

OE hand.lian ‘touch with hands’ > handle OE twinc.lian ‘shine repeatedly with intermittent light’ (cf. OE *twinc- ‘wink’) > twinkle EModE *wrig ‘to twist’ > wriggle OE wræst.lian ‘grapple (repeatedly) in order to overpower’ (cf. OE wræstan ‘twist’ > ModE wrest) > wrestle EModE fond.le ‘treat with fondness’ > fondle ME *crump ‘to draw into a coil, crush’ > crumple OE nest.lian ‘make a nest’ > nestle ME daze ‘to stun’ > dazzle

In OE, we hypothesise, a schema such as (16) was available to speakers: (16)

[[[Xstem]i -lian]Vj $ [[repeatedly SEMi]PROCESS]j]

Various systemic constructional changes affected the shape of the suffix, notably reduction of unstressed vowels in OE, loss of final -n in infinitives in ME, etc. These were post-constructionalization constructional changes, affecting all verbs. In some cases .le has retained its iterative meaning. For example, Marchand (1969: 332) characterizes it as denoting quick, rapid, repetition of small movements, often associated with sound. Examples in (17) include at least twinkle and wriggle. In virtually all cases, access to the stem became lost. As the * shows, the stem is not always attested as an independent form even in OE. In PDE even if an etymologically

Lexical Constructionalization

179

cognate independent form does exist, it is unlikely that most speakers connect the V.le forms with it. They are unlikely to connect nestle /nɛsl/ with nest /nɛst/, unless they are strongly influenced by the spelling, probably even less likely to connect dazzle with daze. The stem and the suffix have coalesced (a morphosyntactic neoanalysis with accompanying changes in meaning) resulting in new conventional semantics (nestle in one of its senses, e.g. in nestle against, has no iterative meaning, for instance), in other words, there has been lexical constructionalization in all cases—all need to be learned. Cases like twinkle and dazzle may be considered to involve ‘cranberry’ morphemes: morphemes that combine with a recognizable element but that have no synchronically accessible free variant like cran- in cranberry (cran- is related to Low German Kraan ‘crane’). In many cases of cranberry morphemes a compound may have been the source. Examples of such developments are given in (17) (the compound notation | is used only for the source form): (17)

OE were|wulf ‘?man wolf ’ > ModE werewolf ME bone|fyre ‘bone fire’ > ModE bonfire Gmc *ahwa|land ‘watery land’> OE ig|land > ME iland > ModE island ME coppe|web ‘spider|web’ > ModE cobweb

In each case in (17) an original compound micro-construction with the form [X|N] came to be used instead as a combination of a cranberry morpheme and a free morpheme; they are instances of decrease in compositionality because of the unanalyzable nature of the bound morpheme. We exemplify with the development of bonfire. In the late ME period, the compositional nature of the compound bone fire is clear from the following example: (18)

In worshyppe of saynte Johan in worship of saint John home, & made iij maner of home and made three kinds of bones and noo woode, and that bones and no wood and that (1493 Festyvall (1515) OED, bonfire, n. 1)

the people waked at the people awoke at fyres. One was clene fire. One was clean is called a bone fyre. is called a bone fire

In the EModE period, the term was used for a funeral pyre, or for any kind of celebratory fire for a particular occasion, no longer necessarily involving the burning of bone: (19)

Then doth the ioyfull feast of John the Baptist take his turne, When bonfiers great with loftie flame, in euery towne doe burne.

180

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes ‘Then the joyful feast of John the Baptist recurs, when large bonfires with high flames burn in every town’. (1570 Googe tr. Kirchmeyer, Popish Kingdome iv, OED, bonfire, n. 4a)

There are a number of micro-constructions which have fire as the second element (e.g. log|fire, camp|fire), but in each case there continues to be greater compositionality than with bonfire, where the phonological changes to the first element have resulted in a particular form peculiar to this compound. Each individual micro-construction is an instance of a constructionalized affixoidal schema of the type in (20): (20)

[[Xi-fire]Nj $ [[fire with relation R to SEMi]ENTITY]j]

However, this schema is hardly well entrenched, and highly diverse in terms of the relation R between the first and second elements. For instance, in logfire, X is what is burned; in campfire, X is the location of the fire. Yet the existence of the first element as a recognizable independent lexeme in other contexts makes this particular construction more compositional than the bonfire example. In cases such as are illustrated in (15) and (17), a weak morpheme boundary may still exist for many people. In yet other cases an original compound may be completely obscured by boundary loss, phonological, and meaning changes. Some examples in the history of English nouns which typify this process appear in (21) (again the morphological notation is used only for the earliest forms): (21)

Gmc. *alino ‘arm’|*bogon- ‘bending’ > OE elnboga > ModE elbow OE gar|leac ‘spear leek’ > ME garleke > ModE garlic OE daeg.es|eage ‘day’s eye’ > ME dayesye > ModE daisy OE nos|thyrl ‘nose hole’ > ME nostrelle > ModE nostril OE stig|rap ‘climb rope’ > ME stirope > ModE stirrup OE scir|gerefa ‘shire reeve’ > ME schirrif > ModE sherrif OE bere|ærn ‘barley place’ > ME bern > ModE barn ME gose|somer ‘goose summer’ > ModE gossamer

Entries in (21) generalize over gradual changes affecting each micro-construction. We illustrate with garlic. A variety of constructions where leac ‘leek’ is the second element are attested in the OE period (e.g. bradeleac ‘broad leek’, hwitleac ‘white leek’, cropleac ‘sprout leek’), all of which referred to varieties of onion (OE leac; see further Anderson 2003: 394). The various relations may include the shape of the leaves (in the case of garleac, the tapered leaves were figuratively construed as resembling spears), or their position (e.g. in the case of cropleac). This suggests there was a very small affixoidal subschema, an instance of which is illustrated by (22):

Lexical Constructionalization

181

(22) Genim garleac þreo heafdu take garlic three heads ‘Take three heads of garlic’ (Leechbook [DOEC]) By later ME we find: (23)

Wel loued he garlek (vrr. garleek, garlik, garlike), onions and eek leeks. well loved he garlic, onions and also leeks (1390s Chaucer, C. T. General Prologue [MED, garlek])

While the form leac ‘leak’ remains (as a specific kind of plant), compounds where the second element is leac disappear, and the subschema is lost. Furthermore, there is also loss of the micro-construction [[gar] $ [‘spear’]]. What is entrenched is the micro-construction [[garlek] $ [‘garlic’]] as an instance not of the schema, but as an instance of the most general referring construction (in traditional category terms, a noun). It appears to have been constructionalized with an atomic form. In the case of garlic, the following factors are relevant post-constructionalization: (a) The form gar appears not to be attested beyond the ME period. (The last use recorded by the OED is at the beginning of the fifteenth century.) (b) Other instances of the X-leac schema do not survive beyond ME. (c) Spelling variation (which potentially reveals phonological properties) reduces over time; the last form attested in the OED as garleek appears in the seventeenth century. Lexical constructionalization of the kind discussed in this section is, as noted above, in essence what is usually and traditionally thought of as lexicalization. It involves loss—there has been loss of schematicity (indeed, loss of a schema), which has entailed loss of type frequency at the schema level, and thus loss of productivity; and there has been loss of compositionality as the form develops into an atomic substantive construction. Reduction in productivity, once it has set in, does not always lead to loss of a schema. What may appear to have become unproductive may be revived. For example, the deadjectival noun forming schema [ADJ.th]N $ [‘abstract entity’] historically created the words warmth, health and breadth.23 This schema is opaque (except in the case of the most frequent expression warmth) to the extent that it is questionable that language users would consider this to be a productive schema; certainly the bases are all cranberry morphemes. Yet forms like coolth (note, the antonym of the most frequent form) and greenth are attested. Language users appear

23 For brevity’s sake, we ignore here the details of the Germanic /iθ/ suffixation, and the effects of i-mutation on the quality of the vowel in the adjective (cf. broad-breadth).

182

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

to be able to look for potential patterns, impose analyzability on a relatively noncompositional set, analogize on those patterns, and hypothesize a new schema. In formal respects, such as coalescence, fusion, and gradual change, there are similarities with grammatical constructional changes (see Brinton and Traugott 2005 on similarities between lexicalization and grammaticalization with respect to reduction, what we here call LR). From our perspective so far there are two main differences between lexical and grammatical constructionalization (a third will be mentioned in section 4.8). Most importantly, in lexical constructionalization the outcome is contentful not procedural. Secondly, when constructionalization recurs, there is usually no change in formal category. Constructions with -dom and -ræden continued to be nouns through the various stages of constructionalization. In the case of grammatical constructionalization, however, there is usually a change in syntactic function. Preposition beside(s) was constructionalized as a subordinator and as a pragmatic marker (see chapter 3.2.3). In the case of WHAT-pseudo-clefts, the anaphoric, specificational first clause of a biclausal structure was neoanalyzed as a cataphoric projector in a monoclausal structure.

4.7 Lexical constructionalization of clauses and phrases Our main intention in this chapter has been to demonstrate that lexical constructionalization involves the development of (sub)schemas that are productive. Only the decay of productive (sub)schemas involves what has recently been identified as ‘lexicalization’ in the historical linguistic literature. Here we briefly mention further evidence for the lexical constructionalization as productive expansion by investigating the constructionalization of clauses and phrases, in other words, the development of various kinds of expressions that have been called ‘idioms’. In early work on construction grammar, the focus on idiosyncrasies necessarily meant that idioms figured large among the constructions discussed. There has been extensive discussion concerning how to distinguish among prefabricated units (‘prefabs’) (see e.g. Pawley and Syder 1983, Erman and Warren 2000, Bybee and Cacoullos 2009), formulae (see Wray 2002, 2006), idioms (see Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow 1994), and conventionalized constructions (Kay and Michaelis 2012). We will not go into this debate here, but mention that given the gradience of construction types in the constructicon, the differences among the constructions seem best thought of as on a gradient. Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow’s (1994) approach to idioms seems fruitful: distinctions can be made along a continuum according to degrees of compositionality. On the semantic side, is meaning transparent in any way, and on the form side is the expression variable in any way? Spill the beans ‘divulge’ or saw logs ‘sleep’ are not semantically transparent, but on the form side they allow some variation (for example, in tense, aspect, or modality). A feature of the class of expressions under discussion is that they are usually subtypes of ordinarily compositional free expressions and therefore have well-

Lexical Constructionalization

183

formed syntax. By contrast even productive word-formation patterns such as are illustrated by skyscraper may have fossilized patterns from earlier periods of the language (in this case O V word order). A recently discussed idiom is X modal be lucky to Y, which implies that the event in the complement clause (Y) ‘most likely will turn out false’ especially in a negative polarity context (Karttunen 2013) as in: (24)

In fact you will be lucky to see any traffic at all. (Karttunen 2013: 174)

Although be lucky is the prototype in this construction, BE unlucky/(un)fortunate to are also possible. In all cases to Y can be replaced by if Y as in (25): (25)

In fact you will be lucky if you see any traffic at all.

While the modal is typically will, occasionally would and should appear as well, cf. You should be so lucky! (a fixed skeptical remark). Non-modal present and past tense forms with an adverb are literal (e.g. be lucky enough) and non-idiomatic (e.g. You were lucky (enough) to be born into a musical family). The idiom X modal be so lucky to Y appears to go back to the beginning of the nineteenth century: (26)

This measure appeared a death blow to the authority of Philip; when the news was communicated at Versailles, marshal Villars could not refrain from exclaiming, “Adieu, court of St. Ildefonso; you will be lucky to be assured of a regular supply of your daily means!” (1813, William Coxe, Memories of the Kings of Spain of the House of Bourbon, Vol. 2, 307 [Google Books; Karttunen 2013: 177]).

Karttunen notes that (26) is a translation from French, which does not have this expression, only the conditional. The original is: Elle sera heureuse si son dîner et son souper sont bien assurés ‘She will be happy if her lunch and dinner are well assured’. A set of idioms that has been of considerable interest is what are called ‘snowclones’, for example, X BE the new Y, the formulaic pattern behind Green is the new Black, the title of a book by Tamsin Blanchard on ethical consumerism, published in 2007. The term ‘snowclone’ was suggested by Glen Whitman in response to discussion on Language Log, in which Geoffrey Pullum asked for a label for a type of cliché that is ‘a multi-use, customizable, instantly recognizable, time-worn, quoted or misquoted phrase or sentence that can be used in an entirely open array of different jokey variants by lazy journalists or writers’ (Pullum 2003).24 In a snowclone a fixed specific expression becomes less fixed by virtue of introducing a variable (a formal change), while the original meaning of the micro-construction generalizes. For

24 The term ‘snowclone’ originated in a joke recalling the debate about the number of terms for snow in Eskimo that Pullum had written about. There is now an informal snowclones database (O’Connor 2007). Pullum (2004, updated several times) accepted the term and cited several types of snowclone at http://itre. cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.html.

184

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

example, My cup runneth over (Psalms 23:5) means ‘I have more than I need’ while my X runneth over may simply mean ‘X is beyond capacity’, ‘X is too much’ etc. There is always some indexical pragmatics (pointing in this case to a historical English version of the Bible, not only conceptually, but morphologically with -eth). Snowclones have limited variants: a search of COCA for variants of My X runneth over returns 4 type hits. These are the original my cup runneth over with cup (10 instances), and 1 instance each with inbox, DVR and bowl. Other snowclones have a wider range: a search in COCA for variants of X BE the new Y returns 11 type hits, many of them colours but with some other forms like trust, saving and Jesus. A Google search provides many more examples, such as Fake is the new real, Programming is the new literacy, Post-black was the new black.25 In such cases, a construct has been reused, taken as the basis of a pattern, ‘customized’ to the particular discourse moment, and generalized in a way that makes it recognizable. Zwicky (2006) argues that snowclones arise in several stages: (a) A pre-formula stage in which variations on an expression occur, all understood literally, and requiring no special knowledge (What one person likes, another person detests), (b) A catchy fixed formula is used (with similar meaning) often drawing on a proverb, title, or quotation (One man’s meat is another man’s poison), (c) The fixed expression may be quickly extended with the development of open slots or playful allusion to it, e.g. via puns or other variations of it (One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian), (d) Snowcloning, a second fixing as variants become (relatively) routinized as formulas with open slots in them (One man’s X is another man’s Y). On this analysis, snowclones can be said to arise from lexical constructionalization of a schema after a number of constructional changes. Another formula that serves as a snowclone is not the sharpest tool in the box. In this case the literal expression not the ADJest N1 in the N2 has become figurative, a snowclone has been developed, and all the variants mean ‘stupid’. The particular constraints on this snowclone are: (a) The form is not the ADJest N1 in the N2, (b) one of the (figurative) meanings of the adjective is ‘intelligent’; suitable candidates are sharp, bright, quick, (c) N1 is a noun the lexical semantics of which denote a concept with properties typically associated with the non-figurative use of the adjective. For instance, if

This last snowclone appears in a 2001 exhibition catalog by Thelma Golden, curator of art created by the post-civil rights generation of African-American artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-black_art; New York Times 30th 2012). 25

Lexical Constructionalization

185

the adjective is bright (‘intelligent’, a figurative use), then N1 will be a noun that denotes a concept which typically is bright in colour (not the brightest penny in the purse), (d) N2 is typically a container in which N1 is likely to be found, e.g. box, purse. Expressions with the form not the ADJest N1 in the N2 have literal, compositional interpretations (these are not snowclones). In their snowclone interpretation, while not literally compositional, they nevertheless depend heavily on such factors as retention of the negative, and recognition at some level that the adjective belongs to the class characterized by a consistent quality/cognition ambiguity. We consider this snowclone further in chapter 5.3.5. It is clearly the case that certain micro-constructions do allow for enormous growth even when the potential for variation seems slight. For instance, Go ahead and X has well over 500 variants (COCA). The critical difference between not the ADJest N1 in the N2 and Go ahead and X is that the latter is clearly doing procedural work and is an instance of grammatical constructionalization, while not the ADJest N1 in the N2 is doing contentful work and is an instance of lexical constructionalization. As might be expected from a lexical, contentful construction, the snowclone also depends crucially on evocation, which the grammatical one does not. Questions have been raised whether some patterns of the sort we have discussed here are actually constructions. Fillmore (1997) and Kay (2013) have variously sought to distinguish creativity based on ‘patterns of coining’ from creativity based on established constructions such as are illustrated by red ball (understood as ‘ball that is red’, not the idiomatic red ball ‘urgent situation’). Kay says red ball does not have to be learned as a micro-construction; it is the productive output of default inheritance from the modifier–noun construction (the latter does presumably have to be learned, however, in a usage-based constructionalist account). Specifically, Kay proposes: there are many patterns that appear in language data that do not qualify as parts of a grammar . . . because, unlike the construction that licenses red ball, these patterns are neither necessary nor sufficient to produce or interpret any set of expressions of the language: each expression that exemplifies one of these patterns has to be learned and remembered on its own. (Kay 2013: 32–33)

Kay compares the productivity of ALL- and WHAT-clefts, which are productive, to formulas like dumb as an ox, flat as a pancake. Although there are several subtypes (cf. comparatives like deader than a doornail), and there is a pattern which Kay formulates as ‘A as NP [interpretation: ‘very A’]’, in Kay’s view this ‘formula does not constitute a construction because it is not productive’ (p. 38). A problem with this approach is that one cannot know without experimentation whether speakers do in fact learn each string individually and whether they are likely or not to build new expressions analogized to these patterns. Within a population of speakers individuals

186

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

will presumably have lesser and greater ability to develop new variants. Kay concludes his paper with the question whether patterns of coining may give rise to constructions, and suggests that the way-construction may have been a case in point, and ‘grew out of a semantically heterogeneous lexical hodgepodge’ (p. 46). As shown in chapter 2.7, the lexical beginnings of the way-constructions were not hodge-podge. As is typical of pre-constructionalization, there were distinct patterns (in this case clustering around motion and around acquisition) that over time became routinized and appear to have been gathered into a schema, and subsequently subschemas were developed. In the case of the contemporary [A as NP] pattern, its members may be synchronically relatively more fixed than the way-construction, but in our view from the perspective of emerging (and declining) patterns, the distinction is not one of construction vs. non-construction, but of degree of productivity. As Liberman (2006) says, snowclones are rather like Kay’s patterns of coining, but are more productive; above all they are effective ‘in evoking a familiar concept’. We appear to be dealing here with a continuum from low to high synchronic activation potential. In a paper challenging Kay’s (2013) hypothesis, and showing that Spanish equivalents of the [A as NP] pattern are not only more productive in Spanish than in English, but also on a continuum with snowclones, Gonzálvez-Garcia (2011) concludes that ‘language users store both the parts and the wholes, and retrieve them when they need them (Bybee and Eddington 2006, Bybee 2010)’.

4.8 On the instantaneous development of some lexical constructions The development of schemas and subschemas that we have discussed involve a succession of changes—the accumulation of construction-types, and the gradual crystallization of a (sub)schema. We have seen how in post-lexical constructionalization there may be slow erosion of a subschema as members become obsolescent, and also of individual micro-constructions as their internal structure becomes fused or reduced. But not all lexical micro-constructions arise gradually. Here we mention a few types of instantaneous change. While a word-formation schema may develop gradually, the individual, specific micro-constructions modeled on the schema are clearly not gradual developments. There is a formnew-meaningnew pairing (e.g. dukedom), but not one which has arisen from a series of micro-steps. It is the result of instant node-creation. Given the subschema [[V.er] $ [person who Vs]], we can use almost any activity verb and instantaneously make an agentive noun out of it (e.g. blogger), and it will function as a full-fledged noun. Given a name of someone in authority, we can instantaneously create e.g. Obamadom to designate ‘the condition of being in a world dominated by Obama’.26 Likewise, we can combine subparts of 26 See headline Obamadom!, Nov. 26th 2008 at http://sheafrotherdon.dreamwidth.org/303140.html (accessed July 29th 2012).

Lexical Constructionalization

187

words to create a micro-construction like sitcom, or an initialism like NGO.27 The range of such forms is huge and a rich source of vocabulary and creativity. We cannot do justice to them here, but mention them to highlight why we think of them as different from the other instances of constructionalization that we have addressed in this book, and in some cases to provide background for the next section in which we revisit some examples that have been considered to be lexicalizations and counterexamples to grammaticalization. A highly productive and very regular word-formation pattern that has been used in English from OE times is ‘conversion’, the recruitment of an extant micro-construction for use in a different syntactic category, cf. use of the nouns calendar or window as verbs, or, less frequently, of an adverb or preposition into a verb (to up), or any part of speech into a noun (what ifs). Mattiello (2013: section 3.2.1.1) cites the case of to diss: a conversion to a verb of the prefix clipped from disrespect. Conversion is a kind of re-categorization, and the converted micro-construction is potentially used without overrides of any general inheritance rules that apply to the part of speech to which it has been recruited. As has frequently been pointed out, starting with Clark and Clark (1979), conversion of a noun into a verb constrains the implied argument structure role of the noun: to calendar is to enter a date on a calendar that preexists, not to make a calendar or use a calendar as a decoration. To bicycle is to use a bicycle for locomotion, and so on. Although there are distinctive patterns that sanction new formations, the individual meanings are not completely compositional and must be learned, so the output of conversion is a construction, but it has not arisen gradually. The creation of new lexical constructions includes the innovation and then conventionalization of neologisms, new lexical items created from the phonological resources of the language. Sometimes the path of change can be quite indirect. Consider quark, which first appeared in Joyce’s Finnegans Wake (1939):28 Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he hasn’t got much of a bark And sure any he has it's all beside the mark

Murray Gell-Mann pre-empted it in 1964 to refer to a group of subatomic particles and ever since it has been associated with particle physics. With reference to the Joyce quotation, the OED suggests that the word refers to a bird, or a noise made by a bird (s.v. quawk, n.).29 Let us assume that its original use by

27 This kind of instantaneous development is usually called ‘coining’ (though not in the sense of Kay 2013 discussed above). 28 See American Heritage Dictionary (2011) for this attribution, and for comments by Murray GellMann. 29 Immediately following this piece of verse in Finnegan’s Wake (p. 383), we find ‘Overhoved, shrillgleescreaming. That song sang seaswans. The winging ones. Seahawk, seagull, curlew and plover, kestrel and capercallzie’.

188

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Joyce was intended as the noise made by the bird (cf. three hurrahs for Muster Mark!). This was an innovation in which Joyce made use of the phonological part of his system in order to create a new sign in his individual language network. A new node was created, but not through a series of micro-steps. Gell-Mann’s re-use of the term, giving it a specific and concrete semantics is also instantaneous. Mattiello (2013) provides an extensive synchronic study and classification of various types of word-formation processes that are usually called ‘extra-grammatical word-formation’ on the assumption that there are ‘rules’ that are not followed. In constructional terms, they are neoanalyses based on a not easily definable schema. Examples Mattiello cites represent a continuum from coinings that have some properties of word-formation to others that do not. Closest to regular wordformation are: (27)

phonaesthemes, e.g. forms in -ump denoting heaviness or clumsiness (clump, dump); these are often playful, back-formations (edit < editor and destruct < destruction); these depend on analogical matching.

In the case of back-formations a pattern like swim – swimmer presumably motivated edit – editor, but in the latter case the verb is derived from the noun, not vice versa. Both processes are haphazard and minimally productive. Other examples involve condensation of various kinds that result in the creation of a new name for an entity or event: (28)

clippings (‘tude < attitude, (to) diss < disrespect), compound clippings (sitcom < situation comedy), blends (motel < motor hotel, chortle < chuckle and snort; recent blends are tofurkey < tofu and turkey, Romnesia30 < Romney and amnesia),

Yet others involve condensation that typically does not result in a new meaning, but rather indexes extant expressions. The phonological form of initialisms consists of reading out each letter separately, which is not the case with acronyms: (29)

acronyms (AIDS /edz/, ‘acquired immune deficiency syndrome’), initialisms (OTT /o ti ti/ ‘over the top’).

Changes of this type have been called extra-grammatical because they are minimally productive and maximally idiosyncratic. Mattiello shows that they are in many cases analogical (e.g. boatel, modeled on motel), constrained by well-formedness constraints on the language such as syllable-structure constraints, and ‘surprisingly

30 A term coined by David Corn in June 2012 for a condition of changing political positions (http:// www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/mitt-romney-history-problem).

Lexical Constructionalization

189

regular’ despite their unpredictability. Above all they are creative expressions that are valuable for a variety of pragmatic discursive reasons from slang to professional jargon. While these word-formation patterns share some general principles associated with formal changes to an existing construction, the situation on the meaning side is rather different. Sometimes there is no change in semantics (sitcom and situation comedy have the same lexical meaning), and the main meaning difference is a socially pragmatic one associated with the degree of formality associated with the discourse context. Sometimes there may appear to be a difference in meaning between the source and the neologism, but it may turn out that in fact the semantic change was a precursor to the formal change. Consider the case of ‘tude. This form means ‘hostile behaviour or demeanour’, and it would appear to be pragmatically odd to say: (30)

a. !Why does she have such a bad ‘tude towards her dad? b. !I’ve never met anyone with such a positive ‘tude.

The first would be redundant, the second contradictory (for many speakers). The first attestation of ‘tude is in the 1970s. It appears that it is a clipping of attitude in the pejorative meaning ‘aggressive or uncooperative behaviour; a resentful or antagonistic manner’ cited in a draft 1997 entry in the OED (attitude 6a) and attributed to the early 1960s. Therefore, the clipping did not involve a change of meaning, its source did. One of the reasons that expressions of this type are considered idiosyncratic is that there is a significant degree of unpredictability (and hence, variation) in exactly what the new form-meaning pairing will be. Consider, for example, clipping of the word pornography in English. For some speakers, the clipped form is a monosyllable (porn), for others, a disyllable (porno). Similarly, the meal that is a combination of breakfast and lunch is brunch, but it is not entirely predictable which specific parts of the original words will be retained when blends are created (compare brunch with Spanglish). However, there are some general guidelines to which speakers of English typically adhere when creating these new forms: they do not combine the nucleus of the rhyme of the first word with the coda of the rhyme of the second (see further Gries 2004, Hilpert Forthcoming). We ended section 4.6 with comments on two differences between lexical and grammatical constructionalization. The present section has suggested a third difference: the creation of lexical micro-constructions by word-formation and ‘extra-grammatical’ processes is typically instantaneous. We are not aware of the instantaneous development of grammatical constructions. The following generalizations can be drawn from the preceding sections: the creation of both lexical and grammatical schemas is gradual; so is the creation of grammatical micro-constructions. Lexical micro-constructions may, however, be created instantaneously. This is summarized in Table 4.3.

190

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes TABLE 4.3. Gradual and instantaneous constructionalization

Schema Micro-Cxn

Lexical Cxzn

Grammatical Cxzn

gradual +/gradual

gradual gradual

4.9 Lexical constructionalization and degrammaticalization In the 1990s and the early 2000s several studies that challenged the hypothesis of unidirectionality in grammaticalization suggested that some kinds of lexicalization are a type of degrammaticalization (e.g. Ramat 1992, 2001, Newmeyer 1998, 2001, Janda 2001, Van der Auwera 2002). Particularly often quoted in this literature are examples like use of up, down as verbs, ante and if as nouns, and of derivational morphemes like .ade, .ism as nouns (Ramat 2001). As has repeatedly been argued since then (see e.g. Haspelmath 2004, Lehmann 2004), these are not examples of degrammaticalization, since they are either conversions (up, down, ante, if ) or clippings (ade, ism).31 Since they do not change gradually, they cannot be reversals of grammaticalization, which is gradual. In the section above we have shown that they are not instances of constructionalization in the sense in which we use the term. In chapter 3.4, we considered the relation between degrammaticalization and constructionalization. There, the focus was on the development of grammatical constructions (like the English -s genitive, or Irish muid) and we suggested that these can be seen as cases of grammatical constructionalization. Here we suggest that certain kinds of changes that have been considered to be cases of degrammaticalization are in fact legitimate instances of lexical constructionalization. Our example here is what Willis (2007) terms ‘syntactic lexicalization’ because it arises as neoanalyses of uses in syntax and Norde (2009) terms ‘degrammation’: a composite change whereby a function word in a specific linguistic context is reanalysed as a member of a major word class . . . gaining in semantic substance. (Norde 2009: 135)32

Willis argues that Welsh yn ol ‘after’ > nôl ‘to fetch’ originated in the sequence yn ol being used in positions where a verbal sense ‘fetch’ could be inferred. This is a kind of syntactic parallel to ‘deflexion’ (secondary degrammaticalization or shift from inflection to clitic in the sense of Norde 2009). Trousdale and Norde (2013) observe that degrammation differs from cases like to up because it involves syntactic neoanalysis and pragmatically ambiguous bridging contexts (on which see further chapter 5). 31

Norde (2009) provides a summary and assessment of the issues. This is a different use of ‘degrammation’ than that of Andersen (2008: 22) who defines it as ‘[a] change by which an expression, through reanalysis, loses grammatical content’. 32

Lexical Constructionalization

191

In the case of Welsh yn ol ‘after’ > nôl ‘to fetch’, yn ol was largely used to mean ‘according to’. The spatial/prepositional sense was retained only in ‘a few frequent (perhaps idiomatic) constructions such as ‘go after’ and ‘leave behind’’ (Willis 2007: 300, emphasis added). In the latter use, yn ol began to occur in positions where a verbal sense ‘fetch’ could be inferred, as in (31): (31) Dos yn ol y marchawc a aeth odyma go.imper.2s yn ol the knight rel went.3s from-here y’r weirglawd. to.the meadow ‘Go after/fetch the knight who went away from here to the meadow’. (late Middle Welsh, 15thC [Willis 2007: 294])33 This example is potentially ambiguous because yn ol can be interpreted as either the preposition ‘after’ (‘Go after the knight who went from here to the meadow’), or an infinitive marker and verb (‘Go to fetch the knight who went from here to the meadow’). In the latter case, there has been phonological neoanalysis (n has been associated with the following syllable34), and syntactic neoanalysis (nôl has been reinterpreted as the head of a VP): (32)

[[yn ol]P y marchawc]PP ‘after the knight’ > [y[[nol]V]VP y marchawc] ‘to fetch the knight’

The neoanalysis allowed nôl to be used as a full lexical verb and to take verbal suffixes that mark, for example, imperative mood as in (33). Such examples are evidence for constructionalization: (33)

Nolwch y Brenin i ’w examnio. Fetch.imper.2p the King to 3sm examine.vn ‘Fetch the king to be cross-examined’. (late 17thC [Willis 2007: 297; Norde 2009: 150])

With constructionalization there was loss of a range of polysemies and a split between the [[yn ol] $ [‘according to’]] that expands with a procedural function, and the [[y nol] $ [go after]] that becomes more restricted with contentful semantics. For the latter there is decrease in productivity, because it is used to collocate with an increasingly restricted set of verbs, a case of host-class reduction in the sense of Himmelmann (2004). However, nôl now inherits from the transitive construction. There is also loss of compositionality following the resegmentation of the nasal to the following word.

33 34

The notation in the gloss in (31) and (33) below is Willis’s. Cf. in English such changes as a napron > an apron, and an eke-name ‘a same-name’ > a nickname.

192

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

4.10 Summary In this chapter we have considered some of the ways in which new contentful constructions come into being. Our focus has been on gradual constructionalization of (sub)schemas, but we have also touched on instantaneous formation of new micro-nodes, whether they are new word-formations, snowclones, clippings or acronyms, once a (sub)schema has been developed. We have proposed the following for gradual lexical constructionalization: (a) Lexical constructionalization is of three types: (i) the development of new complex micro-constructions; this may be gradual, but typically is instantaneous recruitment into a schema, (ii) the development of complex schemas and (sub)schemas through a series of constructional changes (LE); this is gradual in the sense used throughout the book, (iii) the development of atomic micro-constructions out of complex micro-constructions through a series of constructional changes (LR); this too is gradual. (b) Lexical constructionalization of new complex (sub)schemas is gradual and involves a period of growth (expansion), i.e. increase in productivity. This is analogous in many cases to host-class expansion, but in the case of wordformation, the host-class is syntactically very local, being the stem. Semantically host-classes are usually closely connected in the network (e.g. -ræden compounds were associated with the judicial sphere, or with particular social relations). (c) Some complex lexical schemas persist over time, with varying degrees of productivity (compare productive .hood, with less productive .dom). But growth may also be shortlived, and the schema may disappear (cf. -ræden), sometimes through merger with another schema (e.g. ME -hede merged with reflexes of OE -had). (d) Reduction, whether obsolescence of a pattern, or micro-construction-internal change (e.g. kindred), is gradual. Atomic lexical constructions may arise as the remnants of former (partially) productive schemas (e.g. maidenhead, hatred, garlic), or of compounds that did not participate in larger schemas (e.g. werewolf ). With the exception of instantaneous changes in (a), these factors are largely parallel to those found in grammatical constructionalization. However, loss is more frequent in lexical than in grammatical constructionalization in part because many lexical constructions are referential: nominal constructions in particular are more subject to the influence of social factors such as contact and ideological changes than most abstract grammatical ones.35 35 An exception in the grammatical domain is personal pronouns which may be highly subject to social values and changes.

Lexical Constructionalization

193

There are also significant differences between lexical and grammatical constructionalization, most importantly instantaneous change in (a) and also (e): (e) The output of lexical constructionalization is contentful, that of grammatical constructionalization is procedural and indexical. (f ) Lexical constructionalization typically does not involve syntactic expansion, with respect either to becoming available in new syntactic contexts, or to being used with new syntactic functions. (g) In lexical constructionalization there is little bleaching although the contentful semantics may become more general over time (e.g. bonfire). (h) Post-constructionalization, the expansion of a word-formation schema may often be short-lived. While not all cases of grammatical constructionalization are long-lived (e.g. the recent development of the all-quotative and other examples of short-lived changes discussed in Buchstaller, Rickford, Traugott, and Wasow 2010), for the most part they tend to persist for several centuries. We have shown that lexical constructionalization cannot be equated with lexicalization defined as reduction because lexical constructionalization encompasses the growth of schemas (e.g. word-formation and snowclone patterns) and expansion of (sub)schemas as well as reduction. Therefore the claim in Trousdale (2008b, c, 2010, 2012a) that lexical constructionalization involves loss of productivity, loss of generality, and loss of compositionality is too powerful for lexical constructionalization in general. It does, however, hold for those instances of lexical constructionalization that involve the development of atomic constructions from complex ones. The relationship we have proposed can be summarized as in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4. Schematicity, productivity, and compositionality in lexical and grammatical constructionalization

Schematicity Productivity Compositionality

Lexical Cxzn

Grammatical Cxzn

schema growth: increase schema loss: decrease schema growth: increase schema loss: decrease decrease

increase increase decrease

Lexical constructionalization can also not be equated with lexicalization conceptualized as counterevidence for grammaticalization because: (i) Some instances of alleged degrammaticalization qualify as instances of lexical micro-constructionalization (cf. Welsh yn ol > y nôl).

194

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(j) Some instances of alleged degrammaticalization are not instances of lexical constructionalization (or indeed of lexicalization) (e.g. new lexical items formed by clipping (ade and tude), or conversion (down ‘drink rapidly’). With respect to the instantaneous creation of some lexical constructions, we have shown that: (k) Instantaneous creation of a type-construction is limited to microconstructions. (l) The patterns on which instantaneous creations are based may be regular and highly constrained (e.g. word-formation) or more general and unpredictable (e.g. blends). In the next chapter we turn to the issue of how the role of changes in linguistic context may be best understood from a constructional perspective.

5 Contexts for Constructionalization 5.1 Introduction1 ‘Context’ figures large in work on construction grammar. However, as Bergs and Diewald (2009a) point out in their introduction to Contexts and Constructions, the concept is ill-defined. They delimit it to ‘the overlapping area between pragmatics and discourse’ (p. 3). This is consistent with Kay’s (2004) discussion of how one interprets the construction let alone as in (1): (1)

Fred won’t order shrimp, let alone Louise, squid.

Kay says successful interpretation of (1) by the addressee occurs: if he can find in, or construct from, the conversational common ground a set of assumptions according to which Louise’s willingness to order squid unilaterally entails Fred’s willingness to order shrimp. (Kay 2004: 676)

Here ‘context‘ can be understood as a complex structured set of relevant covert pragmatic meanings, some associated with prior utterances, but especially those evoked by the scalar construction let alone. Kay’s perspective is synchronic. But even within a synchronic framework, attention to pragmatic and discourse context only does not appear adequate for constructions understood as units combining both form and meaning. On the one hand there are formal contexts which include specific syntagmatic distributions, priming, etc., and on the other hand there are network contexts—related nodes that enable analogical thinking. World knowledge and social contexts such as speaker-hearer status, gender, locations of utterance may also feature. From a diachronic perspective, the problem is to identify which constructions are conventionalized as evoking or requiring which contexts, an issue that we attempt to address in 5.3. Context has also figured large in work on grammaticalization. In a much-cited quotation, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994: 297) said: ‘Everything that happens to

1 Parts of this chapter appear in Traugott (2012a, b), but in a grammaticalization, not a constructional framework.

196

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

the meaning of a gram happens because of the contexts in which it is used’. Himmelmann (2004) expanded on this: Strictly speaking, it is never just the grammaticizing element that undergoes grammaticization. Instead, it is the grammaticizing element in its syntagmatic context which is grammaticized. That is, the unit to which grammaticization properly applies are constructions,2 not isolated lexical items. (Himmelmann 2004: 31; italics original)

For example, lot is neoanalyzed as a quantifier only in indefinite binominal contexts of the type a lot of (a) N. More recently Garrett has said: We cannot understand how one thing has turned into another without locating the pivot context in which the change originated and understanding how the properties of that context invite the change. (Garrett 2012: 71)

We concur with these comments, noting that, while both authors write about grammaticalization, what they say is true of language change in general, including lexical change, although the role of syntagmatic contexts is clearly far greater in grammatical than in lexical constructionalization. Furthermore, since constructions are form-meaning pairings, the changes we investigate in contexts prior to and after constructionalization must in our view involve both meaning and form—the initial ‘pivot’ may be discourse-functional, pragmatic or semantic, as well as formal. So what is context? Catford (1965: 31) sought to distinguish ‘co-text—linguistic context, relevant textual environment’ from ‘context of situation—participants, type of interaction, e.g. face to face interaction, bystander status, culture’. Subsequently researchers have found this distinction hard to maintain since it depends in part on the linguistic approach being adopted. So the general term ‘context’ is usually used instead, as it will be here. By ‘context’ we mean linguistic co-text broadly construed as linguistic environment, including syntax, morphology, phonology, semantics, pragmatic inference, mode (written/spoken), and sometimes wider discourse and sociolinguistic contexts. The inclusion of mode stems from the observation that there may be significant differences with respect to linguistic structure depending on whether the change is associated largely with spoken language or with written, and therefore change may be affected by mode (Biber and Finegan 1997). Context understood as co-text strictly defined has traditionally been restricted to selectional restrictions on elements in the sentence. For example, König and Vezzosi (2004) discuss the development of complex reflexive anaphors. In OE these were unmarked, as in (2) but, as the PDE translation shows, they are now marked by -self.

2 As noted in chapter 3.2.2, ft. 9, Himmelmann appears to use ‘construction’ in the sense of syntactic string or constituent.

Contexts for Constructionalization

197

(2) hine he bewerað mid wæpnum. 3SG.ACC 3SG.NOM defend.3SG-PRES with weapons.DAT.PL himi hei defends with weapons ‘He defends himself with weapons’. (König and Vezzosi 2004: 228) König and Vezzosi define the onset contexts for the development of -self anaphors as ‘sentences with other-directed transitive verbs and third-person singular subjects’. Lehmann (2008: 211) likewise discusses contrastive clefting as developing within a ‘complex sentence’ even though he regards the ‘operations of information structure’ as ‘concerned with the manipulation of the universe of discourse’. However, with increased interest in such factors as change in spoken language, priming, and interfaces between information structure and syntax, the notion of sentence as context is becoming less sustainable. The sentence is a unit of written language and therefore not suitable for analysis of spoken discourse. Here the ‘clause’ or preferably the ‘intonation unit’ is the prime unit of analysis (Chafe 1994). As mentioned in chapter 1.7, since our historical texts have until recently been written only, the sentence has been assumed to be a viable unit of analysis. However, prior to the seventeenth century the concept of sentence (which originally meant ‘opinion, judgment’) was less codified than it is now. Punctuation that is sentence-based has in many cases been added by modern editors. Therefore, the sentence is in fact a viable unit only for a relatively recent period in the history of English. Construction grammar avoids the problem since ‘sentence’ is not a construction. The larger context in which change occurs is typically the ‘local’ constructional network, i.e. that part of the network which is most strongly affected by spreading activation. In cases of grammatical constructionalization, the local domain may be a particular clause; in lexical constructionalization, the local domain may be a word-formation schema, a phrase or a clause. In this chapter we aim to show that an ideal account of contexts and constructionalization requires attention to the three factors mentioned in earlier chapters: (a) The linear flow of speech and writing (the axis of combination, syntagmatic relations, and indexicality). (b) The alternatives available (the axis of similarity, choice, paradigmaticity, and iconicity). (c) The more general and systemic changes affecting nodes and links in the language network at the time. Until recently, factor (a), change in linear distribution, has been the main focus of much work on morphosyntactic change and grammaticalization. Factor (b) was largely limited until the last few years either to work on inflectional morphology or to work on the lexicon. Multivariate variationist studies of grammaticalization have now begun to elucidate the contexts in which covariation on the axis of choice

198

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(‘competition’) occurs (see summaries of issues in Poplack 2011, Torres Cacoullos and Walker 2009). Diachronic collostructional analysis as developed by Hilpert (2008) combines factors (a) and (b) and identifies changing paradigmatic choices in linear collocations. Factor (c), the relationship of individual changes to larger systemic changes in a language, has, as Fischer (2007) points out, not been addressed adequately; nor have the connections among networks (see De Smet 2010). However, progress has more recently been made combining especially factors (b) and (c) by Norgård-Sørensen, Heltoft, and Schøsler (2011), using a more restrictive concept of paradigmatic relations than that adopted here. In this chapter we do not seek to exemplify ideal full-scale contextual analyses, but to point to some of the factors that analyses of gradual changes enabling constructionalization should incorporate. We therefore do not discuss contexts for instantaneous developments of the type exemplified in chapter 4.8. We start by outlining a framework for analyzing contexts that was originally designed to account for grammaticalization but which we modify to account for constructionalization in general (5.2). In 5.3 we briefly illustrate several kinds of change scenarios that exemplify the framework developed in 5.2, in many but not all instances reprising examples that have already been introduced in earlier chapters. We distinguish between contexts that are construction-internal, those that involve other constructions in the network, and those that are wide discourse functional contexts, such as contesting argumentation. We thus distinguish between constructionspecific context (internal) and network context (the links between constructions), and the discourse uses to which speakers put constructions. 5.4 touches on the issue of persistence of enabling contexts after constructionalization, and 5.5 summarizes.

5.2 A framework for thinking about contexts In previous chapters we have developed the proposal that pre-constructionalization constructional changes enable (but do not predict) constructionalization, and that post-constructionalization constructional changes may enable expansion (increased productivity) as well as reduction of the new construction, whether schema or microconstruction. This proposal draws directly on prior work on linguistic contexts for grammaticalization and lexicalization (e.g. Heine 2002, Diewald 2002, 2006, Himmelmann 2004). We consider some key factors relevant for pre-constructionalization in 5.2.1 and for post-constructionalization in 5.2.2. 5.2.1 Key contextual factors in pre-constructionalization As has been suggested in previous chapters, the key contextual factors in preconstructionalization are the following:

Contexts for Constructionalization

199

(a) The potential emergence of a new construction can be identified in onset contexts that are tiny, minor morphosyntactic readjustments owing to chunking, routinization and repeated selection of a particular set of constructs, all showing evidence of gradualness. (b) These ‘onset’ contexts include pragmatics, e.g. ‘invited inferences’ (Traugott and König 1991), or ‘context induced interpretation’ (Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991); they arise in the flow of speech or writing. (c) Onset contexts are distinct from contexts in which the new expression can be identified. The latter are called ‘switch’ contexts in Heine (2002) and ‘isolating’ contexts in Diewald (2002, 2006). (d) The consequence of a series of tiny readjustments in onset contexts may give rise to synchronic gradience in a system (Traugott and Trousdale 2010b). One point of debate has been whether onset contexts must be ambiguous and if so at what level of grammar. Ambiguity has been a cornerstone of much thinking about neoanalysis as exemplified by the following statement about reanalysis: ‘reanalysis depends upon a pattern characterized by surface ambiguity or the possibility of more than one analysis’ (Harris and Campbell 1995: 51). On the other hand, Heine (2002) and Diewald (2002, 2006) both eschew surface, structural ambiguity and instead highlight covert pragmatic ambiguity. Heine refers to ‘bridging contexts’ which he characterizes as pragmatic inferences, and Diewald to ‘untypical’ and later ‘critical’ contexts with ‘multiple structural and semantic ambiguities’ (Diewald 2002: 103). While the textual record suggests that many instances of grammatical constructionalization were preceded by ambiguity (see especially BE going to discussed below in 5.3.4), this is not always the case, therefore ambiguity cannot be considered a requirement for neoanalysis in grammatical constructionalization. In the case of the way-construction discussed in chapter 2.7, there is no obvious evidence of pragmatic ambiguity nor is it clear what it could have been; here, enriched pragmatics and atypical morphosyntactic distribution appear to have been key in the development of the construction. Another example of lack of ambiguity is the development in the fifteenth century of like into a (now non-standard) modal auxiliary BE like to expressing ‘action narrowly averted’ (Kytö and Romaine 2005, discussed in Traugott 2012a). At this point it may be useful to clarify some terminology used largely in synchronic analyses. Ambiguity is usually thought of as semantic. It refers to the availability of two or more separate and structurally different parsings. If different meanings do not cohere in a plausible manner, e.g. bill of a bird and bill to pay, they are homonyms. If they cohere they are usually polysemous, especially when they have the same source, e.g. book as product of writing, book as text to read, and book as entity (Pustejovsky 1995). Vagueness refers to blended, simultaneously present subcases of a more general meaning, e.g. aunt as mother’s sister and aunt as father’s

200

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

sister (Tuggy 1993, 2007). In the cognitive literature ‘vagueness, polysemy, and homonymy represent a cline of diminishing schematicity and increasing instance salience’ (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2007: 158). In other words they are on a continuum and it is not always easy to distinguish them in particular cases, especially historically. A fourth concept, pragmatic ambiguity (Horn 2001: chapter 6, Sweetser 1990), has been of central importance in work on language change. As defined by Sweetser (1990: 76) pragmatic ambiguity refers to ‘a single semantics . . . pragmatically applied in different ways according to pragmatic context’. For example because is pragmatically, not semantically, ambiguous (Sweetser 1990: 77) in examples like (3). (3)

a. John came back because he loved her. b. John loved her, because he came back. c. What are you doing tonight, because there’s a good movie on.

Semantically, because expresses reason. In (3a) it pragmatically instantiates a realword relation, John’s reason for coming back, in (3b) the speaker’s reason for thinking that ‘John loved her’, and in (3c) the speakers’ reason for asking ‘What are you doing tonight?’ Likewise, cousin expresses a kin relationship, but in My cousin married an actress, a difference between male and female cousins is activated. This is clearly heavily contextually bound: in certain cultures, the prototypical expectation is that the expression My cousin married an actress will activate, in the hearer’s mind, a node ‘male cousin’, rather than ‘female cousin’. This nevertheless can be overridden in societies where gay marriage is permitted, but this would require either significant contextual knowledge (where context here encompasses everything from knowledge of a particular culture to knowledge of the speaker and his or her personal relations), or explicit clarification on the part of the speaker. The kinds of pragmatic meanings that arise in context and are not inherent micro-senses of an expression, but are used to unify the interpretation of an utterance with the rest of the utterance in which it occurs are known as ‘contextual modulations’ (Hansen 2008: 23, drawing on Cruse 1986: 52). They are crucial factors in many changes, as we will demonstrate below. However, as with vagueness, polysemy, and homonymy, it is not always possible to make a sharp distinction between ‘inherent micro-senses’ and modulation, especially when doing historical work. As Bybee (2010: 52) observes, there is ‘no clear divide between aspects of the meaning that are derivable from context and those that are inherent to the lexical item or construction’. A new construction that has arisen by constructionalization often has meaning similarities with the old construction. To date, the term ‘polysemy’ has been widely used in the construction grammar and grammaticalization literatures to refer to shared meanings. Since the term has been used in different ways clarification is necessary. As discussed in chapter 2.4.1, Goldberg extends the term polysemy, which is usually used for meaning similarities among uses of lexical items, to refer to

Contexts for Constructionalization

201

similarities of meaning among synchronic subschemas, and to identify links between constructions in a network, specifically a category ‘with a family of closely related senses’ (Goldberg 1995: 31). In the grammaticalization literature, however, the term ‘polysemy’ has largely been used at a level equivalent to the specific microconstruction to refer to diachronic relationships between source and target.3 In models of grammaticalization that focus on meaning change a new (target) grammaticalized element is often said to be polysemous with the source until the source is lost or splits and becomes a homonym. One hypothesis has been that when pragmatic polysemy is neoanalyzed it is neoanalyzed as semantic polysemy at the switch stage of grammaticalization. For example, in an early version of the model of contexts for grammaticalization, Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991: 73) say that after grammaticalization the form ‘F now has two “polysemies,” A and B, which may develop eventually into “homophones” ’. The polysemy of older and newer layers of grammaticalized elements has been taken for granted in Hopper and Traugott (2003: 102) where grammatical items are said to be ‘characteristically polysemous’. More recently Bybee commented that: Since new meanings arise in specific contexts, they do not immediately replace old meanings; rather there can be long periods of overlap or polysemy where old and new meanings coexist. (Bybee 2010: 199)

The neoanalysis of pragmatic meaning as coded, semantic meaning is in our view an important step in many cases of constructionalization. As discussed in chapter 1.4.2.3, this results in mismatch, and therefore a term for the shared meanings between an earlier micro-construction1 and a later micro-construction2 is needed. As mentioned in chapter 2.4.1, we propose to use the term ’heterosemy’ for meanings shared between earlier and later constructions, i.e. as a diachronic association between two meanings. Attributing the term to Persson (1988), Lichtenberk (1991a) argues that it is more accurate than polysemy where two or more meanings or functions that are historically related, in the sense of deriving from the same ultimate source, are borne by reflexes of the common source element that belongs in different morphosyntactic categories. (Lichtenberk 1991a: 476)

Using the terms ‘heterosemy’ and ‘polysemy’ allows us to distinguish meaninglinks between constructions that are historically related by constructionalization (heterosemy), from synchronic meaning-links between subtypes of a schematic construction (polysemy). For example, there is heterosemy between partitive and quantifier a lot of, but polysemy between sub-types of the quantifier construction (e.g. the set of large-size binominal quantifiers like a lot/load/heap of and the set of small3 It is, however, sometimes used with reference to replicated polysemies across categories, e.g. Givón (1991: 292) writes of the ‘systematic polysemy’ of groups of complement-taking verbs in Hebrew.

202

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

sized ones like a bit/shred/smidgen of ). Likewise, there is heterosemy between a compound like cyning|dom ‘king jurisdiction’ and the affixal word-formation king.dom ‘royal territory’, but polysemy between the several word-formation subschemas of nouns in Middle English that denoted a status or condition (see chapter 4.5.3). We therefore modify Bybee’s statement quoted above as follows: Since new meanings arise in specific contexts, they do not immediately replace old meanings; rather there can be long periods of overlap or heterosemy where old and new meanings coexist.

An issue of some debate has been whether changing onset contexts should be considered to be either background or foreground factors in a particular change. Much of the problem here stems from what is meant by ‘background’ and ‘foreground’, whether they are identified with the original ‘source’ use or with the new ‘target’ use (these terms are used with hindsight about a stage prior to grammaticalization (source) and at or after grammaticalization (target)). Behind the hypothesis of invited inferencing, specifically that much semantic and grammatical change is pragmatic at onset, is the proposal that what are initially background implicatures come to be enriched and foregrounded prior to change (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 34–40). Likewise Heine (2002: 86) says the result of the emergence of bridging contexts that enable grammaticalization is that ‘[t]arget meaning is foregrounded’. Terkourafi (2009) makes a somewhat similar hypothesis about foregrounding of contextual factors, but includes non-linguistic contexts in the mix. Drawing on Goodwin and Duranti (1992) she suggests that ongoing talk involves an utterance (‘figure’), a minimal context (‘ground’, including speakers and the setting), and a background (encyclopedic knowledge), and that ground is ‘simultaneously constrained and invested with meaning by the latter’ (Terkourafi 2009: 34). She suggests that ‘[t]hrough acculturation, these contextual parameters gain in salience’ (p. 35). In other words, repetition of certain uses in certain contexts will foreground the context. A problem is that ‘salience’ is not well understood and there are questions about how to interpret it in a model of unconscious change, such as Keller’s (1994) ‘invisible hand’ model (see Hansen 2008 and, for salience in cognitive linguistics, Schmid 2007). These interpretations of change in grammaticalization all suggest enrichment of prior contextual pragmatics in the direction of the newly emerging ‘target’ (see discussion in 3.2.2 of bleaching in terms of a loss-and-gain model). By contrast, Hansen and Waltereit (2006) and Hansen (2008) argue against Heine’s and Traugott and Dasher’s hypotheses, and claim that what Heine calls the bridging interpretation (enriched pragmatics) is ‘still background with respect to the source meaning, and only moves into the foreground’ when the stage of switch/isolating contexts is reached (Hansen 2008: 63). Boye and Harder’s (2012) hypothesis that grammaticalization involves the attribution of secondary, ancillary, background meaning to expressions (see chapter 3.2.1) would also appear to be inconsistent with the hypothesis that pragmatic contexts become enriched and increasingly accessible to a group

Contexts for Constructionalization

203

of speakers. Despite these objections, on our view the pragmatic context must by hypothesis be foregrounded to be sufficiently activated to enable change. Corpus data for several developments supports this view, as we show in discussion of contexts for the development of the quantifier a lot of (5.3.2), quantifier several (5.3.2), and BE going to future (5.3.4). 5.2.2 Post-constructionalization contextual changes Constraints on contexts after grammaticalization are largely associated with ‘actualization’, or the spread across the system of new elements (see e.g. Timberlake 1977, Andersen 2001, De Smet 2012). Here we mention three lines of thought and show how they may be adapted to a constructionalization framework. One is associated with gradual expansion and analogization, the second with persistence, and the third with ‘coercion’. While Himmelmann (2004) discusses host-class, semantic-pragmatic, and syntactic expansion as contextual expansion, little is said about the question of constraints on that expansion. Of recent interest has been evidence for almost imperceptible steps in expansion, an idea consistent with micro-change. Focusing on evidence for analogy and the importance of similarity relations, De Smet (2012: 629) suggests that the constraints guiding actualization are ‘at least in part a function of the resemblance a given innovation bears to existing patterns already licensed by the grammar’ and that ‘new steps in the actualization process are easier to take if the result resembles some established coocurrence path’ (p. 625). An example he gives is of the downtoner all but (< ‘everything except’). The downtoner use originally appears with predicate nominals as in (4a) and then with predicate adjectives (4b): (4)

a. Pshaw, pshaw! This is all but the whining end of a modern novel. (1773 Goldsmith, She Stoops to Conquer [CL 1; De Smet 2012: 611]) b. as if the works of nature were not all but infinite, (1821 North American Review [COHA])

The next step is expansion to passives (5a), and, with increasing frequency, verbs (5b): (5)

a. The boat was now all but jammed between two vast black bulks. (1851 Melville, Moby Dick [COHA]) b. He all but fell down and knocked his head on the table out of sheer helpless astonishment. (1948 Allen, Toward Morning [COHA; De Smet 2012: 612])

De Smet argues that the path to collocation with verbs is one of similarity and that passive past participles represent what we would call a transition point, having similarity relations between verbs and adjectives (p. 612). He finds confirmation in the fact that the verb collocates that are favored in the data are past tense forms that are identical to past participles, e.g. finished, thought (p. 612). So all but ‘can be seen to

204

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

spread from one environment to another along a network of similarity relations that hold between those environments’ (p. 616). An additional, though distant, semantic link in the network in this case is presumably the use of all meaning ‘only’ as in ALLpseudo-clefts. De Smet also discusses ways in which earlier distributions may affect later developments, showing that the rise of adjectival uses of fun and key suggest ties to earlier uses as a modifying mass noun. According to De Smet, while fun is used adjectivally in both predicate and attributive contexts, key is preferred in pre-adjectival attributive contexts (6a) from its incipience around 1950 to 1980, when predicate uses begin to dominate (6b, c). (6)

a. Therefore, we shall start our description of the behaviour of electric charges in motion by summarizing the key experimental observations. (1961 Sherwin, Basic Concepts of Physics [COHA; De Smet 2012: 623]) b. We are totally independent, and that's a very key point. (2002 CBS, Sixty Minutes [COCA; De Smet 2012: 624]) c. Oh, absolutely. Cars are very key. (2003 CBS, Sixty Minutes [COCA; De Smet 2012: 624])

De Smet attributes this step-wise development as in part reflecting the original use of key as a count noun that can occur attributively as in a key factor, while fun originated as a mass noun, and could therefore occur predicatively as well as attributively (the fun game, that’s fun). The paths of the development of all but and key discussed here pertain to ‘persistence’ or maintenance of ties to earlier distributions, a ‘look-back’ effect which is discussed in greater detail in 5.4 below. De Smet (2012) also seeks to predict on the basis of analogy what an item probabilistically ‘may pick up’ (p. 609). Unlike persistence, this is a ‘reach-forward’ effect. The fact that new members of existing categories tend to be used in ways similar to the category they now belong to is theorized in construction grammar as ‘coercion’. Mentioned in Goldberg (1995) and elaborated on in Michaelis (2004: 25) coercion is an inferential procedure or typeshifting whereby ‘the meaning of the lexical item conforms to the meaning of the structure in which it is embedded’. Coercion presupposes that lexical nouns and verbs may have certain inherent semantics, even though they are underspecified, and that these are subject to the effects of grammatical constructions. For example, according to Michaelis the prototypical partitive construction involves type-shifting: the partitive is designed to shift the unbounded value of the (necessarily undetermined) lexical complement (say pie, as in a piece of pie) to the bounded value associated with the head (piece) [and] requires that the nominal complement of the PP headed by of denote a mass entity. (Michaelis 2003: 173, bold added)

Contexts for Constructionalization

205

‘Requires’ in this quotation deserves comment. Michaelis here draws on Goldberg’s idea that ‘a construction requires a particular interpretation that is not independently coded by particular lexical items’ (Goldberg 1995: 159). A well-known example is the way in which count nouns are understood as mass nouns when used without an article (e.g. There’s lizard on the road, meaning there is some kind of lizard-mass on the road, probably because a lizard was run over). Another is the way in which events expressed by telic accomplishment verbs are understood as not having been completed when used with the progressive, e.g. Joan was winning when she fell does not entail that she won; by contrast, Joan was running when she fell does entail that she ran since run is an atelic activity verb. Yet another example that has been cited is the way-construction, in which elbowed in She elbowed her way through the room is often said to acquire the implicature of obstruction and difficulty and the semantics ‘pushed through using X’ from the constructional pattern meaning. From a usage point of view, coercion has to be regarded as the contextual effect of schemas and exemplar templates—using a lexical construction in the context of a schematic grammatical construction may trigger a mismatch, because the hearer potentially aligns—creates a link—between one node in a network and another, and that representation is not shared with the speaker’s mental representation. Default compositionality is overridden and hearers resolve the semantic conflict on-line. Coercion has largely been referred to with respect to synchronically well-entrenched patterns, such as the count/mass and telic/non-telic mismatches mentioned above. While such effects do appear to have synchronic validity, they are best understood as conventional, normative, and probabilistic, not absolute requirements. Otherwise change could not occur, nor would it occur step-wise in ways outlined above. Furthermore, one might expect micro-constructions that are recruited to extant schemas to match the prototype schemas with fewer idiosyncrasies and unique constraints than they do if coercion were a direct and strong force ‘requiring’ some particular interpretation. As we suggested in chapters 2.5 and 3.5.1 and as we show in section 5.3.4, new members of extant constructions are typically marginal members of the category initially, and become fully absorbed into them only over time. Ziegeler (2007, 2010) has questioned whether coercion is needed as an independent mechanism. Traugott (2007) has questioned whether it is ever ‘required’, given that changes occur. However, there is no question that certain collocations are preferred at particular times in the history of a construction, but these may change, as is amply attested by Hilpert’s (2008) work on changing collostructions. Nor is there any question that if a new verb is used in e.g. the way-construction it will probably be readily fitted into the meaning of the construction, provided it has some plausible semantic compatibility with the construction. If a nonsense verb is used in a ditransitive it will probably be understood as belonging to the default category (give-type), e.g. to grung someone something will probably be understood as expressing transfer rather than intended transfer (the bake-type). Goldberg (2006: 116)

206

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

discusses experiments in which 60% native English speakers understood she mooped him something as meaning she ‘gave’ him something. However, this interpretation presumably depends in part on the immediate linguistic context as well as the schema—grung Sheilah a degree might be understood differently from grung Sheilah a cake, moop Alex a story differently from moop Alex a ball. In our view, mismatches result inevitably from the interaction of on-line production and the choices that need to be made in filling slots within a complex schema, and the relations between slots in a schema. Hearers encountering mismatches attempt to find a suitable interpretation. Some mismatches are more common, therefore more likely to be entrenched than others. These are the ones that have been said to coerce meaning. But the ability to understand She was winning when she fell or There’s lizard on the road is in principle no different from that shown by hearers encountering innovative uses. As Diewald (2006: 10) says in connection with grammaticalization: coercion, understood as the use and reinterpretation of lexemes in previously incompatible constructions, is based on cognitive and pragmatic procedures like metaphorical extension (which, too, may be treated as a kind of analogical transfer) and conversational implicatures in Grice’s sense.

She goes on to point out that such pragmatically motivated interpretation by interlocutors is consistent with Michaelis’s (2004: 7) characterization of coercion effects as ‘triggered when the interpreter must reconcile the meaning of a morphosyntactic construction with the meaning of a lexical filler’. It is the basis of creativity. Older contexts for the source and newer ones for the emerging target are always shifting. In the process mismatches constantly occur and language users are wellequipped to interpret them. We conclude that coercion is neither deterministic nor a unique property of constructions. The term and the way it is discussed suggest ‘topdown’ effects of rigid extant schemas. Our view is ‘bottom-up’, and essentially consistent with De Smet’s of probabilistic matching based on perceived similarity. While coercion is meant to account for the phenomenon of mismatch and violation of norms (usually with complex schemas), ‘blocking’—preemption of new forms and patterns by extant ones—accounts for resistance to overrides. The best-known examples of preemption are lexical, e.g. preemption of *stealer by thief, and morphological, e.g. preemption of *mans by men (Langacker 2008: 235). Sometimes homonymy blocking may also occur (a small pig is a piglet, a small book is a booklet, but a small toy is not a toylet, the latter being preempted by toilet, while listed waiter ‘person who attends to diners’ blocks the more transparently compositional and more general waiter ‘person who waits’ (Giegerich 2001)).4 ‘Resistance to overrides’ implies that blocking is not deterministic. Rather, it is a function of frequency (Bybee 2006) and of social convention. For example, catched is preempted by caught in 4

See Plag (1999) for some discussion of problems associated with the concept of homonymy blocking.

Contexts for Constructionalization

207

Standard English but not in many other varieties. Langacker suggests that specific units ‘have an advantage’ over more abstract ones. In other words, speakers access extant forms easily. This is true, but because abstract (sub)schemas are accessible, and analogical thinking is easily activated, new forms can be introduced. It is not the extant forms or the (sub)schemas that have advantages or offer resistance to new forms, it is speakers’ conventions that do so.

5.3 Types of contexts for constructionalization In this section we spotlight several cases of constructionalization with focus on onset contexts prior to constructionalization, but also some discussion of contexts postconstructionalization. We have chosen change scenarios according to the hypothesized degree to which the immediate locality of the internal structure of a construction does or does not serve as the enabling factor for constructionalization. The scenarios are organized roughly on a scale of immediately local contexts to wider discourse contexts. Construction-internal contexts are those in which one or more constituents of a complex construction serve as enabling factors. Usually there is pragmatic modulation and some distributional preferences or constraints can be detected. This is the constructional version of traditional selectional restrictions. We will show that sources may be constructions of a different degree of complexity or level of schematicity than their targets. Most examples have been discussed in earlier chapters, but two, the development of -lac as an affixoid (discussed in 5.3.1), and the development of several as a quantifier (discussed in 5.3.3), have not. 5.3.1 Contexts for the development of word-formation schemas: -dom, -ræden, and -lac. In this section, we in part revisit the development of nominal compounds into nominals with derivational affixoids, including those in -dom, and -ræden, discussed in chapter 4.5 and 4.6, and also introduce the marginally productive ME schema with -lac, an affixoid used to derive abstract nouns. Only one word-formation with -lac survives into ModE: wedlock (originally it referred to the marriage vow rather than the state of marriage). In 4.5 we pointed out several factors relevant for constructionalization. One is that the most general meaning of the noun, e.g. dom, and ræden, underwent change. From a contextual point of view, we may say that only those compounds of which the second constituent was dom underwent change when the first allowed a general interpretation of dom rather than the more specific meanings like ‘doom’, ‘dignity’, ‘power’, ‘choice’. As will be explained below, the first (‘base’) nouns had certain specific semantic properties. Similarly, only those compounds in which ræden was the second constituent underwent change when the semantics of the first allowed interpretation of ræden as ‘condition’ rather than its more specific meanings ‘estimation’, ‘rule’. In OE, lac as a noun meant ‘game, fight’ but as the

208

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

second constituent of a compound it meant ‘action, proceeding’ (Haselow 2011: 157). Again we can say that only those compounds of which the second constituent was lac underwent change when the first allowed a general interpretation of lac as ‘action or proceeding’ rather than the more specific meanings like ‘game’, ‘fight’. Dalton-Puffer (1996), Dietz (2007), Trips (2009), and Haselow (2011) all discuss two aspects of the word-formations in question. One is the syntactic class of the base (noun, adjective, verb), the other is the constraints on the semantics of the base. Focusing on the latter, the following points may be noted. dom appears to have been construed as the second element of a compound, later affixoid, if the base denotes a state characterized by the behaviour of a group of individuals (cristen|dom ‘christianity’, martyr|dom), the rank of a group of individuals (biscop|dom ‘rank of bishop’), the abstract result of an action (swic|dom ‘deceit’), or a state defined by a particular quality (freo|dom ‘freedom’) (based on Haselow 2011: 153). Over time the semantic constraints were shifted or relaxed as |dom was neoanalyzed as an affixoid and later affix; for example biscop|dom came to mean the location over which a bishop had authority, rather than the status of being a bishop. Trips identifies having authority as the chief semantic feature of PDE .dom. Relaxing of the semantic constraint on the base led to expansion of the bases in ME. In the case of ræden, it appears to have been most likely to be interpreted as a compounding element, later affixoid, when the first constituent was a noun denoting judicial relations (mann|ræden ‘service, dues paid by tenant to owner of house’), and social relations (feond|ræden ‘enmity’). As discussed in chapter 4.5.2, ræden was a marginal member of the set of nominals that came to be derivational affixes. So was lac. It was bleached in the context of bases referring to ‘actions with a high degree of dynamics and the involvement of physical energy’, e.g. heaðo|lac ‘warfare’, wif|lac ‘carnal intercourse’, reaf|lac ‘robbery’, bryd|lac ‘celebration of marriage’ (Haselow 2011: 137). These semantic contexts are in part a function of the syntax of the base. In the case of dom, ‘quality’ was associated with adjectival bases ( freodom, wisdom). lac came in ME to be associated mainly with adjectival bases (perhaps under the influence of the Old Norse cognate -leikr), enabling a short-lived period of expansion to bases denoting states and conditions ( freo ‘free’ – freolac ‘voluntary offering’; god ‘good’ – godlac ‘goodness’) (Dalton-Puffer 1996: 81). In the three cases of word-formation discussed here, the semantic constraints on the base were relaxed over time as the word-formation became more productive. This is a type of host-class expansion at the lexical pole. The meaning of the second constituent of the compound was the most general one available for the nominal from which it was derived, and over time there was further generalization of the meaning of the derivational construction, as well as of the base. This is a case of slight semantic-pragmatic reduction (bleaching). With respect to syntactic contexts, these were essentially the base, primarily adjectival and nominal, but in some cases also verbal. There is clearly evidence of expansion of the syntactic type of the bases used with the affixoids -dom and -lac. However, as is to be expected of nouns, there is no

Contexts for Constructionalization

209

evidence of expansion to wider syntactic contexts, e.g. the argument role in which the base was used, or use as a pragmatic marker. In conclusion, expansion was very local, within the word-formation schema. 5.3.2 Partitive contexts for the development of binominal quantifiers: a lot of In the previous subsection the context for constructionalization was the compound, a complex schema with a morphological dependency, together with the semantics of the base. In this subsection we revisit the development of binominal part and size noun expressions such as a lot of into quantifiers. This too is a complex schema, but one with a syntactic dependency; here the semantics of the modifier NP is crucial. In the grammaticalization literature OE representations of the partitives with genitive inflection would not normally be included in discussion of the grammaticalization of the quantifiers since the form is not preserved. However, from a constructionalization perspective, which pays attention to families of constructions, these are relevant precursors at the level of the general schema within which the quantifying pragmatics of the indefinite subschema (‘pseudo-partitive’) became salient. An OE example with a modifier in genitive case is (7): (7) On Fearnes felda ge byrað twega manna hlot landes in Fearn’s field you extend two men’s parcel land.GEN in to Sudwellan. in to Southwell ‘In Fearn’s field extend a parcel/share of land large enough for two men . . . ’ (958 Grant in Birch Cartul. Sax. III. 230 [OED lot n. 2.a.]) In OE there was no indefinite article, but it is reasonable to assume that this was understood as non-anaphoric and indefinite. Ormulum, written about 1200, is one of the earliest texts in which lot is found with an indefinite article and of, as in (8). Here because NP2 is ‘people’, lot can be understood as akin to ‘group’: (8) tat tegg wisslike warenn an lott off tatt Judisshenn follc. that they certainly were a part of that Jewish people ‘that they [Pharisees] certainly were a part of that Jewish people’. (c.1200 Ormulum 16828 [PPCME, Brems 2011: 211]) In the same text lot is also used with a meaning close to ‘kind’: (9) Ne nan off þise cullfress Þatt sindenn i þiss midderrærd not none of these doves that are in this world an lott off manne fode. a part of man’s food ‘Nor any of these that are on earth part/kind of man’s food’ (c.1200 Ormulum, 10939 [MED man 1a.c])

210

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

A later example, where lot unambiguously means ‘unit for sale’ is found in (10), but this construct is not strictly speaking an example of the ‘pseudopartitive’ construction under discussion (see chapter 1 ft. 17) since it is definite and has an attributive adjective: (10)

You must tell Edward that my father gives 25s. a piece to Seward for his last lot of sheep, and, in return for this news, my father wishes to receive some of Edward's pigs. (1798 Austen, Letter to her Sister [CL 2])

These examples all show ‘contextual modulation’—pragmatic enrichment given different collocates, all within the partitive construction. A part implies a quantity, and a group implies a fairly large quantity, as in (11): (11)

a. said he, I understand you sell Lambs at London; I wish I had known it, I would have brought a Lot of Lambs for you to have sold for me. He told me he liv'd at Aston-Cliston; I said that was a pretty Way; but he said . . . the Butcher could take but few at a Time, and he wanted to sell them all together. (1746 Trial of John Crips, t17460702-25 [OBP]) b. and there shall be a warm seat by the hall fire, and honour, and lots of bottled beer to-night for him who does his duty in the next half-hour. (1857 Hughes, Tom Brown’s School Days [CL 3])

In these examples a lot of and lots of could be understood as either ‘individual units’ or ‘many, much’. With the plural (lots of ), the implicatures of quantity become particularly salient, Particularly interesting is (11a) where there is discussion about selling the lambs individually (a few at a time) or as a unit (all together). (11b), however, is probably about ‘much beer sold in bottles’, though it could conceivably be about ‘packs of bottled beer’. In these examples, the implicature of quantity would appear to be foregrounded not backgrounded. In (12a) a quantity reading is most plausible since wasps (unlike bees) tend not to fly in units or groups (a paraphrase by a piece/share/unit/group of wasps is semantically incongruous). Likewise in (12b) a quantity reading is identifiable because abstract room does not come in units: (12)

a. The next day the people, like a lot of wasps, were up in sundry places. (c.1575 J. Hooker, Life Sir P. Carew (1857) 49 [OED lot n. 8.a.]) b. Clear away, my lads, and let's have lots of room here! (1843 Dickens, Christmas Carol [CL 2])

Recent grammars consider the quantifier use ‘informal’ (e.g. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik 1985: 264). Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad, and Finegan (1999: 277) comment that quantifiers ending in of are ‘recent’ and ‘[i]t is thus no surprise that these are relatively rare, and when they do occur, they are most typically found in conversation, or carry a strong overtones of casual speech’. As (12a) shows, a lot of is not all that recent in its origins, assuming the 1857 edition is faithful to the original

Contexts for Constructionalization

211

1575 edition. A lot of is, however, rarely used as a quantifier until the nineteenth century. The data do suggest that it arose primarily in texts on the conversational pole of the oral-literate continuum such as the Old Bailey Proceedings. In literate genres such as philosophy and many novels represented in CLMETEV a lot of is, however, largely used for ‘fate’ rather than amount, as in (13), which may be part of the reason why it was proscribed at first. (13)

the consciousness of that remaining tie . . . could alone have sustained the victim under a lot of such unparalleled bitterness. (1837 Disraeli, Venetia [CL 2])

As pointed out in chapter 1.5.3 a quantity reading is obtained when anaphoric reference is not to a lot (the anaphor is it) but to a plural NP2 (them, they in (14a)). In (14b) be in the existential construction is plural agreeing with beasts, not singular agreeing with a lot. These are the kinds of (morpho)syntactic context expansions Himmelmann (2004) identifies for grammaticalization: (14)

a. Q. You bought a lot of sheep at Salisbury. – A. Yes. We brought them from there to Willsdon to graze; they were purchased on the 12th of August. (1807 Trial of John King, t18071028-3 [OBP]) b. and soon got among a whole crowd of half-grown elephants, at which I would not fire; there were a lot of fine beasts pushing along in the front, and toward these I ran as hard as I could go. (1855 Baker, Eight Years Wandering in Ceylon [CL 3])

The changes provide evidence that constructionalization has taken place and the semantics-syntax mismatch has been resolved. Further evidence for constructionalization is collocation with abstract nouns such as fun, hope, truth, none of which are conceptualized in parts. This is Himmelmann’s semantic-pragmatic context expansion. As discussed in chapter 1.5.2, the quantifier use shows not only semantic attrition (of concrete ‘piece, share’) to more abstract quantification prior to constructionalization, but post-constructionalization also morpheme boundary and phonological reduction (represented in non-standard writing as alotta and a lotta, and on-line in the form allot of ). This kind of post-constructionalization attrition appears to be motivated by frequent use in informal, relatively rapid speech, an external context. The examples presented here suggest that the immediate linguistic context for the constructionalization of quantifier a lot of is the partitive schema, especially the semantics of N2. But the development should not be thought of independently of the wider set of partitive > quantifier changes, or of the set of binominal measure > quantifier changes discussed in Brems (2010, 2011), e.g. loads of, and the set of binominal type > approximator constructions (Denison 2002, 2011; also Brems 2011), e.g. a sort/kind of. The latter originally meant ‘type’ as in a sort of moss and

212

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

came to be used as an approximator as in a sort of (a) wife). Each of the binominal constructions had their own histories, but all share similar structures and scaling semantics leading to constructionalization, followed by further expansion of collocates. As mentioned in chapter 2.3.2, an early precursor and no doubt partial attractor was dæl ‘part’ in a partitive construction. In (15a) the grammarian Ælfric translated the Latin hoc occiput ‘this occipital lobe’ with an expanded relational phrase (‘back of the head’). In (15b) of is presumably intended in its original spatial meaning (‘out of, from’), but it appears to be bleached here (of PLACE expressions are a highly frequent type of collocation): (15)

a. hoc occiput se æftra dæl ðæs this occipital lobe that posterior part that.GEN ‘this occipital lobe: the back part of the head’ (c.1000 Ælfric’s Grammar 74.6 [DOE])

heafdes head.GEN

b. Ic gife þa twa dæl of Witlesmere. I bequeath the two parts of Witlesmere (a1121 Peterb.Chron. (LdMisc 636) [MED del n2, 1a]) (16) exemplifies pragmatic ambiguity between dæl as unit and as ‘amount/quantity’ since both instances are modified by a quantifying adjective (micel ‘much’ and god ‘goodly/sizeable’) and NP2 refers to a mass (wæter ‘water’ and huniʒ ‘honey’). (16)

Micel dæl bewylledes wæteres on huniʒes godum great part boiled.GEN water.GEN in honey.GEN good.DAT dæle. measure.DAT ‘(Measure) a great amount of boiling water into a goodly measure of honey’. (c.1000 Sax. Leechd. II. 202 [OED deal n1, 3])

Syntactically, however, this is clearly partitive since the first NP2 is modified by an adjective (bewylled ‘boiled’) and honey is preposed. The implicature of quantity became routinized with indefinite uses of dæl especially in the ‘critical contexts’ of quantifying adjectives such as micel ‘much’ and great and mass nouns, giving rise to several examples like those in (17), both of which are pragmatically ambiguous: (17) a. On leches heo hadde i-spendedet On physicians she had spent guod. wealth (c.1300 SLeg.Kath. [MED spenden])

Muche del great part

of of

hire her

Contexts for Constructionalization

213

b. A smot him on þe helm . . . Wyþ þat stroke a schar he smote him on the helmet . . . with that stroke he sheared away a gret del of ys hare. away a great part of his hair (c.1380 Firumb.(1) (Ashm 33) [MED cappe]) The quantifier sense is fully constructionalized when it collocates with abstract Ns especially of emotions, such as love, sorrow, whining. MED does not cite examples of a del of in the quantifier sense ‘large amount’. A deal of occasionally appears as a quantifier with no modifier in EModE as in (18b), but is more frequently found with a modifier like great (18a): (18)

a. and talk’d a deal of impudent stuff. (1730 Trial of Margaret Fache, t17320705-27 [OBP]) b. The Prisoner with a great deal of whining denied the thing. (1678 Trial of Mary Read, t16781211e-8 [OBP])

This construction was probably not a direct model for a lot of because far fewer nonmodified examples of a deal of like (18a) are attested than modified ones: by EModE, when quantifier a lot of came to be used, a great deal of was already a largely fixed phrase as in (18b). Another partial candidate is a bit of (< ‘a bite out of ’), but here the size is small. It too developed in the eighteenth century, but, unlike a lot of, appears to have been considered acceptable in standard English. In their study of the grammaticalization of quantification nouns like bunch in binominal strings, Francis and Yuasa (2008: 50) conclude that there has been bleaching of the original sense from concrete ‘bundle’ to abstract ‘large quantity’: (19)

bundle > collection > large quantity

(19) is true only of the singular as bunches ‘can only be understood in the bundle sense’ (p. 52). Francis and Yuasa reject Brems’s (2003) claim that a bunch of is grammaticalized and argue that for a bunch of there was no syntactic head shift, therefore there is only semantic mismatch. They regard agreement phenomena to be variable and non-diagnostic of head shift and argue that non-substitutability of lot and bunch by much and many in the binominal strings shows they are not ordinary quantifiers (pp. 50–51). However, consistent with Brems (2003), Brems (2011) argues that while bunches of is not used with quantifier meaning and is not grammaticalized, a bunch of is grammaticalized, but not as strongly as a lot of in PDE. This is because a bunch of is productive (occurs in many type-constructions), is token-frequent when unmodified, and has undergone head shift, as evidenced by agreement patterns. It is preferred with a ‘valuative’ meaning, specifically negative prosody (Brems 2011:

214

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

182–183).5 Francis and Yuasa’s (2008) position regarding (partial) non-substitutability by much and many ignores the historical fact that while older quantifiers like these are roughly equivalent to core modals in that they reflect older syntactic patterns, quantifiers in binominal structures are productive and distributionally congruent with periphrastic prepositional syntax in ways analogous to the periphrastic auxiliaries. It also ignores quantitative evidence that each binominal is associated (at least in certain genres) with a specific frequency profile ranging from 0% quantificational examples (bunches of ) to 100% (a lot of, lots of ) (Brems 2010, 2011; see Fig. 3.1 in chapter 3.3.1). Further, Yuasa and Francis’s rejection of the evidence for resolution of mismatch on grounds that collectives often have both singular and plural agreement is problematic because the larger set of binominal quantifiers includes constructions like a bit of, which has no collective semantics, so the argument from collectives does not hold. We conclude that if a partitive has developed quantifier semantics and there is evidence of syntactic head shift, as attested by agreement and anaphor patterns, or if there has been phonological reduction of the quantifier, grammatical constructionalization has occurred. The changes occur in the local context of the original partitive construction and in the wider context of the quantifier schema (which itself changes with the addition of each new quantifier). Important too is the general shift in English morphosyntax toward periphrasis. As we have seen, in OE the noun modifier occurs in the genitive case; of was a largely ME development. So was the development of the indefinite article, so the equivalent of OE hlot landes is now a lot/parcel of land. The change is also part of the type-expansion of slots in the NP outlined in the next subsection. 5.3.3 Contexts for the development of an adjective of difference into a quantifier: several Here we discuss the development of another quantifier, several, this time from a modifying adjective. This development further enriched the quantifier schema (but did not participate in the periphrastic development). The increase in quantifier construction types is part of a larger set of changes that the NP underwent during the history of English. One of these changes concerns the development in ME of the determiner (DET) slot and subsequently of what is often referred to as DP (see Denison 2006) with predeterminers like all and quantifying a lot of (all the girls, a lot of the girls), and, from the late eighteenth century on an increasingly large set of options ranging from quite (quite a rake, quite the gentleman) to free relatives (what appeared to be a male vampire) (see Van de Velde 2011 on expansion of the left margin of the NP). The second major set of changes occurred in EModE and concerns various changes in pre-nominal modifying adjective (MODADJ) 5 Further evidence is provided by phonological reduction, represented in writing as buncha (see Urban Dictionary).

Contexts for Constructionalization

215

constructions. Most especially there were various types of expansion of the combinatorial possibilities of constructions within the NP (see e.g. Adamson 2000, Breban 2010, 2011a, b). The categories within NP in PDE are generally agreed on (see Payne and Huddleston 2002, Gonzálvez-Álvarez, Martínez-Insua, Pérez-Guerra, and Rama-Martínez 2011). They arose gradually and are synchronically gradient (Denison 2006). In EModE MODADJ was expanded by the development of a submodifier slot for a semi-adverbial intensifying construction such as pretty in a pretty nasty quarrel where pretty modifies the immediately following adjective, not N. Pure and pretty came to be used as quasi-adverbs in the submodifier slot of the MODADJ schema, where they modify adjectives. Other adjectives undergoing similar developments include lovely (Adamson 2000), intensifiers like well, as in well weird (e.g. Stenström 2000, Macaulay 2004), pure as in pure white sheets (Vandewinkel and Davidse 2008), and pretty as in pretty ugly. One of this set, very (from French verrai ‘true’) became a submodifier like pretty now is, and later was neoanalyzed as an adverb. In some other cases, attributive adjectives denoting difference or sameness were used as a quantifying postdeterminer and then as a quantifier in DET, e.g. several, sundry, various, different, and distinct (Breban 2008, 2010, 2011a). Here we look briefly at the development of several first as a postdeterminer and then as a quantifying determiner (D-QUANT). Originally several was used mainly attributively meaning ‘separate, distinct’ as in (20): (20)

a. Of whech xiii Defendauntz, iche persone by ye lawe may of which thirteen defendants each person by the law may have a several Plee and Answere. have a separate plea and answer ‘Of these thirteen defendants, each is entitled by law to submit a separate plea and have an answer’. (1436 RParl [MED defendaunt (n.)]) b. All men should marke their cattle with an open severall all men should mark their cattle with an open distinctive marke upon their flanckes. mark on their flanks (1596 Spencer, State Irel. [OED several Adj, A I.i.d; Breban 2010: 348])

Use in restricted contexts such as with plural nouns as in (21) is likely to have been the critical context for neoanalysis since distinct plural persons or objects entail more than one : (21) All the sommes of the said xth part . . . be restored all the sums of the said tenth part . . . to-be restored and repayed to the severall payers therof. and repaid to the separate payers of-it (1474 RParl. [MED paier(e) (n.)])

216

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Several was early used as a postdeterminer signaling individuated, distributed plurality, as in (22). This is constructionalization involving assignment to the postdeterminer slot and semantic change. (22)

The Psalmist very elegantly expresseth to us the several gradations by which men at last come to this horrid degree of impiety. (1671 Tillotson, Sermons [HC ceserm3a; Breban 2010: 325])

Evidence for the changes includes token frequency increases (which are not always reliable indicators), distributional changes (decrease of singular NPs and later also definite plural NPs) and changes in position relative to other elements in the premodifying string. Now only several open marks is possible, not an open several mark (20b). Later there was a further constructionalization when several was used as a D-QUANT as in (23), a further constructionalization. The new meaning is roughly ‘a few’ (not distributed). Formally there is a new distribution: use with singular thousand in (23) rather than thousands (Breban 2010: 327): (23)

We have provided accommodation now for several thousand of the most helplessly broken-down men in London. (1890 Booth, Darkest England [CL 3; Breban 2010: 326])

Like pure, several was multifunctional from the start, and also as in the case of pure, the changes are primarily identifiable by increases in token frequency. Such increases suggest that inferences of quantity were foregrounded. However, while most of the other adjectives became intensifying submodifiers or postdeterminer quantifiers, the original meaning of several (‘distinct’) in attributive uses as in (20) was lost by the end of the eighteenth century (as was the predicate use), and the quantifier use came to be the predominant one by the twentieth century (Breban 2010: 324). Now only several open marks is possible, not an open several mark (20b). Some recent examples of D-QUANT several are attested with stacked adjectives in (24). (24b) illustrates its use in DET preceding MODADJ with the submodifier pretty: (24)

a. probably the most visible one of several unending distinct financial supervision services there are actually is the credit-based card. (Network Technology, Nov. 30th 2010, http://www.ntkmart.com/network-technolgy/the-best-thingto-realize-to-get-a-credit-card; accessed May 31st 2011) b. I picked up a cheap hard drive camera a month or so ago and have done several pretty ugly grilling related videos for my Vimeo channel. (http:// vimeo.com/928412, accessed May 31st 2011)

The stacking of elements before N as in (24) is known as ‘densification’ of the NP (Leech, Mair, Hundt, and Smith 2009: chapter 10) is a further and more recent

Contexts for Constructionalization

217

change than the development of DP and of intensifying quasi-adverbial submodifiers of MODADJ, but can be seen as related to the systemic expansion of the NP that has been going on for a thousand years. 5.3.4 Contexts for the development of future BE going to Various aspects of the development of BE going to were introduced in chapter 3. Here we consider the issue of contexts for the change from motion to future, and how to think about the source: is it a purposive motion construction, or go combining with a set of constructions in the network? The received wisdom is that it arose as an ‘immediate’ or ‘scheduled’ future marker from ‘motion-with-a-purpose’ uses of go. Recently Garrett (2012: 66–70) has challenged both of these assumptions. He proposes instead that it arose from an extended use of go, which he calls inceptive ‘turning or preparing to do an action’ (drawing on OED go 34a, which includes ‘to turn to, betake oneself to, proceed to’).6 That BE going to expressed relative (‘be about to’) not deictic tense (‘will’) when it was first used as a temporal is attractive in that it accounts for the seventeenth-century paraphrases ‘about to’ and ‘ready to’ illustrated below. However, there is a problem with the proposal that the extended ‘turn/prepare to’ meaning of go as it typically introduced a noun not a verb. Garrett points out (p. 67) that the noun can be a gerund with -ing, and cites goe to writing or reading (in a text from 1577); in such cases the noun has verbal properties. In the discussion below we propose that the first examples suggest that BE going to initially emerged as a relative, non-deictic future, meaning ‘later’ (which is consistent with ‘about to’), but did arise from motion go. In other words, we will propose a rather different analysis of this particular case of grammatical constructionalization than has been suggested before, including by the first author of this book (e.g. Traugott 2012a, b). Traugott (Forthcoming), however, presents an analysis similar to the one here. In section 5.2.1 we pointed out that ambiguity has often been thought to be a requirement for grammatical neoanalysis. In the case of BE going to, support can be found over a period of about one hundred and thirty years in textual data for Diewald’s concept of ‘untypical’ and ‘critical’ contexts, including not only pragmatic ambiguity (untypical) but also morphosyntactic specialization (critical). Two potentially ambiguous expressions appear in the data at the end of the fifteenth century. Since the first example (25a) is a translation from Arabic, it might be suspect, but the second, much cited, example appears only five years later in an English monk’s report of a revelation (25b) and suggests that morphosyntactic specialization was occurring: 6 Núñez-Pertejo (1999) earlier proposed that BE going to as a temporal originally meant ‘be prepared to’. She suggests (p. 137) that constructions such as purpose to, be about to, be about V-ing, be upon V-ing, be on the point of may have been possible way-pavers for BE going to. Eckardt (2006: 102) also posits neoanalysis of the motion expression as ‘being in preparation of, or about to do X’.

218 (25)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes a. ther passed a theef byfore alexandre that was goyng there passed a thief before Alexander who was going to be hanged whiche saide . . . to be hanged who said (1477 Mubashshir ibn Fatik, Abu al-Wafa', 11th C; Dictes or sayengis of the philosophhres [LION: EEBO; Traugott 2012a]) b. while this onhappy sowle by the vyctoryse pompys of while this unhappy soul by the victorious pomps of her enmye was goyng to be broughte into helle for the her enemies was going to be brought into hell for the synne and onleful lustus of her body sin and unlawful lusts of her body ‘While this unhappy soul was going to be brought into hell by the victorious ostentatious displays of her enemies for the sin and unlawful lusts of her body’ (1482 Monk of Evesham, Revelation 43 [OED go 47b; Arber 1869: 43; Danchev and Kytö 1994: 61])

Both examples in (25) are likely to have been intended and understood by most readers and hearers as involving motion with a purpose since in both motion in space appears elsewhere in the clause: passed byfore in (25a), and broughte into helle in (25b). To a twenty-first century reader the idea of a soul being physically taken through the streets is anomalous at best, but in medieval times it was not, and indeed earlier in the text the monk reports having a vision of the soul being led around by a rabble of devils and tossed like a tennis ball: (26) loe after that noyse and creye folowde a cursyd lo! after that noise and cry followed a cursed companye of wyckyd spyrytys and a mighty ledyng company of wicked spirits and a mighty leading with hem anone as they hopyde to helle a soule with them immediately as they hoped to hell a soul of a woman late departyd fro her body . . . Tho of a woman recently departed from her body . . . those wekyd spyryteys . . . castyd that soule amonge hem wicked spirits . . . casted that soul among themselves as a tenyse balle. like a tennis ball ‘Lo! After that noise and cry followed a cursed and large company of wicked spirits leading with them immediately, they expected, to hell, a soul of a woman recently departed from her body . . . those wicked spirits . . . tossed that soul among them like a tennis ball’. (1485 Monk of Evesham, Revelation [Arber 1869: 42])

Contexts for Constructionalization

219

However, knowing the later history of BE going to, it is plausible to think that at least some readers might have interpreted was goyng to in both (25a) and (25b) as having more to do with intention regarding later events (an entailment of the purposive) than with motion because the passive demotes agency and hence demotes action by the thief in (25a) and by the soul in (25b). If so, (25a, b) exemplify untypical, bridge implicatures and we may conclude that for some speakers and hearers there may have been a contextual modulation that activated pragmatic ambiguity between motion with a purpose and futurity. For them the pragmatics of later time may have been foregrounded. Both examples in (25) also illustrate unusual but ‘critical’ morphosyntactic contexts for go. It is in fact these critical contexts combined that allow for the ambiguous implicature. One of the critical contexts is what we call the ‘preprogressive’ BE -ing (because in ME BE -ing was rare and not ‘a grammaticalised aspectual indicator in the verbal system till 1700’, Rissanen 1999: 216). However, forms without be (and therefore probably not ‘critical’ contexts) appear fairly frequently in adjunct clauses, as in (27) Vor for vor for

ij two the the

days goyng to Cogysbyry to gete tymbyr days going to Cogsbury to get timber cherche church (1447–8 Acc.Yatton in Som.RS 4 [MED])

Another critical context is use in a purposive construction. If this occurs, a directional PP usually intervenes between going and purposive to, as in (27). This means that use of purposive BE going to with an immediately following verb as in (25) is highly unusual. A third critical context is passive in the purposive clause, also as in (25).7 In addition to being rare, examples of BE going to V appear in contexts where motion is not only the reasonable reading, but is actually often primed by mention of movement or location, and could be construed as more salient than relative future, e.g.: (28)

Than this sir Garses went to delyuer them and as he wente sir Olyuer Clesquyn mette him & demaunded wheder he went and fro whens he came. I come fro my lorde the duke of Aniou and am goynge to delyuer the hostages. ‘Then this Sir Garses went to deliver them (hostages), and as he went, Sir Oliver Clesquyn met him and demanded whither he went and from whence he came. “I come from my lord the Duke of Anjou and am going to deliver the hostages” ’. (1525 Froissart, 3rd and 4th Book of Cronycles of Englande [LION: EEBO; Traugott 2012a])

We therefore suggest that in some cases, the effects of context may best be understood as spreading activation from semantically related concepts that occur 7 However, Peter Petré (p.c.) questions whether passive is as important or the progressive as rare as is suggested here.

220

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(frequently) in the surrounding discourse: participants in the discourse are primed to focus not only on temporal reference generally (sir Garses went, he wente), but also on contrasts between one point in time and another. This is set up by wheder he went (implying later temporal reference) and fro whens he came (implying past temporal reference); this is paralleled (albeit in reverse) by I come from (past reference) and am goinge to (reference to later time). The examples cited here all show that the larger context of prior discourse is crucial for understanding any construct and for thinking about contexts for change. If only I . . . am goynge to delyuer the hostages were cited, (28) would appear to be a likely example of the ‘relative future’, whereas if the prior context is included, it is far less likely to be understood this way (although the temporal pragmatics of later time are of course present by default because of the purposive). The examples also suggest that, although the inference of later time can be overridden and backgrounded by extensive motion contexts as in (28), it was in most cases foregrounded, in other words, potentially more easily accessible. While there is no disagreement about the eventual constructional status of the BE going to relative and, later, deictic future, one question that arises is whether its source was itself a construction, as implied by the almost ubiquitous reference in the grammaticalization literature as ‘motion-with-a-purpose’. Focusing on the importance of thinking of grammaticalization in terms of context and of strings larger than single lexical items, Bybee says: In grammaticalization, not only do new constructions arise out of existing constructions, but also a further step is taken in that a lexical item within this construction takes on grammatical status. (Bybee 2010: 30)

In Bybee (2006: 720) she refers to a cognitive representation which is a motionwith-a-purpose construction. This interpretation of the source of the auxiliary is in our view somewhat problematic in light of the perspective on grammatical constructionalization we are espousing here. We need an account that picks out the ‘critical’ aspects of usage that enabled the development of the new meaning, and propose that it did not originate in a motion-with-a-purpose construction. Rather, it originated in the use of the micro-construction go (i.e. the lexical micro-construction) unifying with a particular set of constructions, specifically: PURPOSEITR (short for purposive with intransitive verb), BE -ing (the ‘pre-progressive’), and, optionally PASSIVE. In this constellation of constructions, PURPOSEITR entailed intention of activity at a later time (relative future), BE -ing signaled ongoing activity, and PASSIVE demoted the agent of motion. Repeated use of go in the context of this constellation of constructions led to semantic expansion: coding of the pragmatics of intention to act at a later time, and use before verbs where motion was unlikely or unnecessary (host-class expansion). The examples in (29) are among the earliest attested plausible examples of BE going to used as a temporal rather than a motion verb. In (29a) ‘he’ is unlikely to be

Contexts for Constructionalization

221

going anywhere to make a noose with his garters, he just needs to bend down, and in (29b) the schoolboy is unlikely to be going far to be whipped (though this is not excluded): (29)

a. So, for want of a Cord, hee tooke his owne garters off; and as he was going to make a nooze (‘noose’), I watch’d my time and ranne away. (1611 Tourneur, The Atheist’s Tragedie [LION; Garrett 2012: 69]) b. He is fumbling with his purse-strings, as a school-boy with his points when he is going to be whipped, till the master weary with long stay forgives him. (1628 Earle, Microcosmography }19 [cited by Mossé 1938: 16; Garrett 2012: 69])

That BE going to was conventionalized as a temporal and recognized as such in the early part of the seventeenth century is shown by the much-cited statement made by a grammarian called Poole in 1646: (30)

About to, or going to, is the signe of the Participle of the future . . . : as, my father when he was about [to] die, gave me this counsell. I am [about] or going [to] read. (1646 Poole, Accidence 26 [Danchev and Kytö 1994: 67; brackets original])

Slightly earlier evidence is also provided by an annotation of a passage from the Bible: And Jakob said, Sell to me this day thy first birthright. And Esau said, Loe I am going to dye: and wherefore serveth this first-birthright unto me? The annotation reads: (31)

going to die] that is, ready or in danger to die: which may be meant, both in respect of his present hunger, which could not (as he profanely thought) be satisfied with the title of his birthright: and of his daily danger to be killed by the wild beasts, in the field where he hunted. (1639 Ainsworth Annotations upon the five books of Moses, the book of the Psalmes and the song of songs http://books.google.com/books?id=ki1BAAAAcAAJ; brackets original; accessed June 6th 2011)8

While Ainsworth’s annotation may be meant to be theological not linguistic, it confirms that he intended be going to to have a temporal meaning in his text, and that at least one person other than Poole was aware of the new use. It also confirms that at the time it was thought of as a relative rather than deictic future. The shift to deictic rather than relative future appears to have taken place in the context of the shift to full auxiliary status discussed in chapter 3.3.2. This shift is correlated with the use of BE going to with be and other statives, and with use in raising constructions, as in (32). (32a) is (20b) in chapter 3, repeated here for convenience:

8

Many thanks to Richard Futrell for this reference.

222 (32)

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes a. I am afraid there is going to be such a calm among us, that . . . (1725 Odingsells, The Bath Unmask’d [LION; English Prose Drama]) b. Burnham. I should be glad to know what Freedom there was between us. Bowers. There was going to be a pretty deal of Freedom, but I lost it in the mean Time. (1741 Trial of Esther Burnham and Godfrey Nodder, t17411204-5 [OBP])

Expansion from collocation with largely telic verbs like say, give make, tell, and marry in the earlier periods to highly frequent verbs like be, have, do in the nineteenth century is discussed in Hilpert (2008). Such expansion suggests that during the eighteenth century temporal BE going to came to be construed as less and less closely networked to the multiple sources that enabled it. An indirect context was no doubt the extant auxiliary schema, which already had several members. These were organized in two main subschemas, the far more token frequent ‘core’ modals with monomorphemic form (will, shall, must, etc.), and a periphrastic set (be to, have to, ought to). While the form of BE going to appears to be partially matched to the periphrastic auxiliaries, the meaning is not. The periphrastic auxiliaries had more to do with future obligation and probability than with ‘future’, whether relative or deictic. So initially BE going to was only indirectly matched to either set. Although used far less frequently than the ‘core’ set, the periphrastic set was nevertheless harmonic with the increasingly analytic syntax of English and was presumably the default auxiliary form activated by analogical thinking. When speakers began using the BE going to relative future at the beginning of the seventeenth century, they presumably aligned it to this periphrastic subschema. At the time and through the beginning of the eighteenth century, the semantics of ‘deictic future’ is to be found in the core auxiliaries like will and shall (see Nesselhauf 2012, who uses the term ‘prediction’ for deictic future). Over time, as host-class expansion and various types of syntactic expansion were occurring in the seventeenth century, the semantics of BE going to came to be aligned with that of some of the core modals, a semantic constructional change. The proposal presented here acknowledges that analogical thinking was probably involved in the development of the BE going to future, as argued by Fischer (2007, 2010). However, the analysis is significantly different from hers: meaning is considered crucial to the development, and only analogical thinking, not analogization is considered to be a likely enabling factor. Furthermore, both the periphrastic and the core modals are considered to have been contexts relevant to the change. While Fischer presents adoption of BE going to into the category of auxiliaries as instantaneous and based on analogy with the form of the periphrastic auxiliaries, the data presented here show that the initial entry into Aux was at the margins—initially it was apparently a relative future mismatched with go used in multiply inherited

Contexts for Constructionalization

223

constructions. This is a characteristic of gradualness. De Smet (2012: 604) points to a similar expansion of approximative about from inanimate to animate complements as in about ten people left, and, attributing animate properties to the construction. He says that about ‘fails for some time to fully realize its potential, appearing instead to be constrained by more or less superficial generalization based on similarity’. Similarly we can say of BE going to that speakers fail for some time to treat it as a full auxiliary and use it as an only marginal member of that construction. The argument presented above has implications for the traditional assumption that there was polysemy between motion and future BE going to. As was suggested in 5.2.1, heterosemy is the more appropriate concept for meaning shared between an earlier and later construction, but in this case we have argued there was no earlier motionwith-a-purpose construction, so there was no heterosemy in this case. It is reasonable to suppose, however, that language users assumed some connection between constructs based on form, especially if they were literate. But it is also clear that access to any resemblance grew weaker and weaker over time since the later history of the BE going to future, as is well known, involves phonological reduction in spoken usage to what is usually represented in writing as BE gonna. The first examples appear in the OED at the very beginning of the twentieth century (Mair 2004), e.g.: (33) Yo’re gonna get a good lickin'. (1913 C. E. Mulford Coming of Cassidy ix. 149 [OED gonna]) As Berglund (2005) shows, gonna is now the chief variant found in contemporary spoken English. Although speakers of contemporary English know that BE going to V can be used in a construct expressing motion with a purpose, one factor that has not been the subject of much discussion in the literature is to what extent it is actually used that way. Traugott (2012b) points out that it is difficult to find examples in the first fifty years of the Old Bailey Proceedings (1674–1723) of constructs of this form that unambiguously mean motion not only before but also after the semantic change to temporality occurred. This appears to have continued to be the case. A brief check of Google Books turned up the example in (34): (34)

We are going to accept your kind invitation to visit your city; we are going to visit the historic battle-fields that surround the city of Richmond; we are going there not out of curiosity, but we are going to drop a tear in memory . . . (1904 The National Engineer, Vol 8: 11; accessed April 12th 2012)

The collocates accept, drop a tear require a future reading, visit allows, but does not require, a motion reading. Only are going there unambiguously requires a motion reading in (34). In sum, we have suggested that the prime context for the development of the BE going to future is use in constructs inheriting from a constellation of constructions.

224

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Other contexts include the extant auxiliaries and the systemic expansion of auxiliaries, especially modals (see Krug 2000 on emerging modals). As mentioned in chapter 3.3.1, this continues to enable the recruitment of new auxiliaries such as be fixing to (largely used in Southern American English, and presumably analogized on BE going to), got to, want to, and even non-verbal ones, such as (had) better. 5.3.5 Slots as contexts for the development of snowclones: not the ADJest N1 in the N2 Internal conditions appear to have been sufficient for the gradual constructionalization of the affixoidal subschemas that later sanctioned new word-formations. Furthermore, there is some evidence of semantic clustering (lexical sets) in the creation of new micro-constructions after the constructionalization of the lexical schema takes place. This kind of clustering is also observable in the kind of micro-constructions sanctioned by snowclones. Here, the notion that context includes ‘related nodes that enable analogical thinking’ (see 5.1), is particularly important. Consider in this regard the snowclone discussed in chapter 4.7 formulated here as [[not the ADJest N1 in the N2] $ [‘not very clever’]], to draw attention to the adjective. Examples from COCA of this snowclone include: (35)

a. Junior’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. (1999 Karon, A New Song [COCA]) b. she’s as nutty as a fruitcake, a stuck-up mean girl, and not the brightest bulb in the pack. (2011 Connors, Kelly’s Reality Check [COCA]) c. Poor Bill Frisk was not the quickest bunny in the warren. (2009 Lehner, Southwest Review 94 [COCA])

In these cases, the meaning of the overall schema has to do with the intelligence of the referent of the subject NP. The first adjective is polysemous, where one (metaphorical) meaning relates to intelligence, but the semantic cohesion of the rest of the expression relies on an alternative (non-metaphorical) meaning. The nonmetaphorical meaning is a salient attribute of the noun it modifies (knives are known for having a sharp edge, rabbits for being rapid in movement, and so on). This aspect is part of the coded meaning (semantics) of the noun that fills the slot N1 in the schema. In addition to linguistic semantic meanings there is usually encyclopedic meaning that is part of the contextual background (see Terkourafi 2009 and 5.2.1 above). The noun in the PP that follows not the ADJest is a typical container for the referent of the modified noun (knives are typically found in drawers, bulbs come in packs etc.). However, the typical container is not a central part of the meaning of the noun that fills the slot N2 in the schema—it is not part of the semantics of knives that they are stored in drawers, or of bulbs that they should be bought in packs. As is the case with most snowclones, this part of the meaning is encyclopedic and culturally variable. Speakers have to draw on encyclopedic knowledge to interpret the snowclone.

Contexts for Constructionalization

225

The schema for the snowclone fully sanctions expressions in which one meaning of the adjective is conventionally associated with intelligence, but the remaining linguistic context draws on the more literal meanings associated with that adjective and on encyclopedic knowledge of the relationship of the container to the noun N2. The contextual meanings associated with a snowclone are activated only if the expression is accessed as a snowclone, and not literally. Partial sanctions are also attested, however. For instance, sweet is literally associated with gustatory perception, but has a metaphorical association with pleasantness of character rather than intelligence, which is the default for snowclones with the form [not the ADJest N1 in the N2]. This may motivate expressions such as that in (36): (36)

He’s not the sweetest candy in the box, but I would be real reluctant to accuse him of this level of lying about Paul’s stance. (http://www.westernjournalism. com/ron-paul-denies-accusation-he-thinks-bush-responsible-for-911/; accessed Nov. 29th 2012)

Similarly, hot is metaphorically associated with sexual attractiveness, a meaning that may motivate expressions such as (37): (37)

Also, during the story, Steven develops a crush on Renee Albert, who is the hottest girl in eighth grade. The odds of that happening are extremely unlikely. Let’s just say he is not the hottest marshmallow in the fire. (http://booknook. marbleheadcharter.org/2011/11/10/drums-girls-and-dangerous-pie/; accessed Nov. 29th 2012)

The degree of conventionalization of such extensions remains to be determined, but it is evident that for some users of contemporary English, the schema associated with the form [not the ADJest N1 in the N2] has generalized from meaning ‘not very intelligent’ to meaning ‘not very ADJ’ (where ADJ is the metaphorical meaning conventionally associated with the adjective at the formal pole of the construction). In other words, the development of this snowclone suggests a constructional change, particularly, generalization of meaning. 5.3.6 Contexts for the rise of pseudo-clefts In the examples we have discussed so far, relevant contexts have been constructions in the network. Here we discuss the constructionalization of ALL and WHATpseudo-clefts in broader discourse contexts,9 specifically those that are contesting and ‘dialogic’—they implicate alternatives (see Schwenter 2000 on dialogicity; also White 2003, Traugott 2010b).

9 See Östman (2005) for suggestions on how to think about larger discourse contexts as constructions. His focus is, however, on genre, not argumentative purpose as here.

226

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

As indicated in chapter 3.5.2, in precursors of the ALL pseudo-clefts all is interpreted positively as ‘everything’, e.g. (38) ((42a) in chapter 3, repeated here): (38)

I loue thee dearer then I doe my life, And all I did, was to aduance thy state, To sunne bright beames of shining happinesse. (1601 Yarrington, Two Lamentable Tragedies [LION: EEBO])

But there are real-life risks that one’s all may be found inadequate by others, as stated very clearly in (39) ((41b) in chapter 3, expanded here). Here, on the battlefield of Agincourt, King Henry prays, contemplating the murder of Richard II by his father, Henry IV. He has cited some of the things he has done to atone for the crime and promises to do more, but recognizes that whatever he does may not be enough: (39)

. . . More will I do. Though all that I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence comes after all, Imploring pardon. (1600 Shakespeare, Henry V, IV.i.320 [LION: Shakespeare])

This kind of conflictual situation appears to be the discursive context in which the new ALL- and WHAT-clefts arose since early examples, particularly those with do, occur in argumentative passages in which alternatives are raised and often rejected. In some cases, like (40b), an interpretation that others have made is specifically rejected: (40)

a. Concerning the name of Picardy, it is a difficulty beyond my reading and my conjecture. All that I can do is, to overthrow the less probable (‘plausible, viable’) opinions of other Writers (1656 Heylyn, France Painted [LION: EEBO]) b. If it be objected that I preached to separate Congregations; my Answer is, That I preach'd only to some of many Thousands that cannot come into the Temples, many of which never heard a Sermon of many years. And what I did, was only to preach to such as could not come to our Churches. (1697 Baxter, Mr. Richard Baxter's Last Legacy [LION: EEBO])

In (40a) all that I can do in the context of difficulty beyond my reading invites the inference that everything is not enough or of no value, therefore the action specified in the second clause is low on a scale of effectiveness; indeed the only thing the writer can do is overthrow the less plausible opinions of others. In (40b) what I did invites the inference that the action taken was restricted to the activity in the second clause, and did not include the type of actions the author is blamed for. This is made explicit by only. An interesting example in which two different potential interpretations of the same action can be seen in the same sentence is: (41)

By all which your Honours may perceive, how he [Master Pet Senior] hath falsly traduced the Commissioners of the Navie, . . . and all he drives at, is by his

Contexts for Constructionalization

227

unjust aspersions to bring the Parliament and them at ods, that so he might accomplish his own ends. (1646 mscb [ICAME: Lampeter]) According to the author, everything Master Pet Senior purposes (drives at) is to cause discord, a factor anticipated after his actions. This presumably is positive from Master Pet’s perspective. From the perspective of the writer, however, it is negative and low on a scale of morality—falsly and unjust are grounded in the writer, not he, since Master Pet would not have characterized his own actions and remarks in this way. Specificational constructions exclude alternatives, and it appears that when some speakers used the new specificational pseudo-clefts they made them in part redundant (see use of only in (40b), as well as if it be objected). In other words, the discourse-pragmatic function is made overt in the discourse and the text in a variety of ways, and the interlocutor’s task is to ‘find in, or construct from, the . . . common ground a set of assumptions’, as Kay (2004) suggested in connection with let alone (see 5.1). Over time, the structural properties of ALL- and WHAT-clefts came to be identified with specificational exhaustive listing, and the pseudo-cleft could be used in a wider range of contexts. We have focused on the immediate argumentative contexts in which the pseudoclefts appear to have arisen. A larger systemic context is likely to have been the rise in EModE of new ways to signal focus relationships (Los 2009). Los and Komen (2012), for example, link the loss in English of verb-second (V2) syntax in the fifteenth century, and hence the ‘loss of a first position that could host contrastive constituents’ (p. 884), with increase in token frequency of IT-clefts and especially the rise of ‘emphatic’ clefts such as (42): (42)

It is just twenty years that we had that very happy meeting at dear Coburg . . . ! (186x:1271.694 Victoria [Los and Komen 2012: 892])

How directly this development is tied to the rise of the pseudo-clefts remains to be investigated, however.

5.4 Persistence of enabling contexts In section 5.2.2 the issue of persistence was mentioned in connection with De Smet’s (2012) proposal that actualization occurs in small steps that maintain similarity with earlier uses, as in the case of all but and key. Earlier Breban (2009: 80) had pointed out that ‘A newly emerging use developed by an item has to “fit in” with its source structure, viz. it is “sanctioned” by the structure of the original use, and is in some recognizable way structurally moulded by it’, exemplifying with examples of adjectives of differences, e.g. different and other. Both Breban and De Smet take a structural and syntactic view of persistence. Persistence had, however, originally been discussed mainly in terms of meaning (Hopper 1991, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca 1994). In either case, original distributions or semantics affect later developments and exert a

228

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

kind of pull-back effect on later developments thereby constraining the contexts in which constructionalized elements may appear. This means that routines may sediment and maintain (or even strengthen) links in a network. The topic of persistence was introduced as one of the ‘principles of grammaticalization’ (Hopper 1991: 22). However, it appears to be a factor in change in general. Hopper’s discussion of persistence and De Smet’s of small-step actualization both concern item-specific changes. With respect to pragmatic implicatures, these often persist in a new role as coded semantics. As we have seen in the case of BE going to, the implicature of ‘relative future’ from PURPOSEITR was semanticized as the meaning of BE going to (Eckardt 2006). This is a process that Kuteva (2001: 151) has called ‘context-absorption’ and is a small-step change in actualization of go in specific contexts as a temporal. Likewise the implicature of quantity from partitives like a bit of was semanticized as a property of binominal quantifiers. The original partitive semantics is partially maintained, especially, as Brems (2011) shows, in the case of small size parts (a bit/shred of ) or measures (an iota/smidgen of ). With respect to critical morphosyntactic contexts, consider BE going to again, particularly the context of the PURPOSE construction, which required an agentive verb in the purpose clause. Using diachronic collostructional analysis, Hilpert (2008) shows that intentional meanings such as agentivity, transitivity, telicity not only were key to choice of verb that collocates with BE going to in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, but still continue to be, although statives (be, like) occur, and light verbs (do, get, have) are in fact now preferred contexts. In other words, the expanding host-classes are in part consistent with the original PURPOSE context. He also illustrates the degree to which persistence of such contexts is language-specific by comparing the history of BE going to with that of the Dutch cognate gaan ‘go’ + V-Infinitive. As early as the seventeenth century, Dutch gaan collocates with less active posture verbs in Dutch like zitten ‘sit’ (Hilpert 2008: 114) than does BE going to in the seventeenth century. Over time in Dutch there was a shift to atelicity and less intentional meanings such as are associated with posture; furthermore, cognitive response verbs are currently preferred (beminnen ‘love’, denken ‘think’). This implies that English speakers have retained much of the original source semantic context (agency, intention associated with purpose) during the three centuries in which host-class expansion of the future has occurred (despite divergence from the original go in specific constructional contexts). On the other hand, Dutch speakers have not retained the agentive meanings of the original source, but have expanded a less activity-oriented subset of collocations available from the beginning.10 10

Another possibility is that the uses of Dutch gaan were not as distinctively purposive as the uses of English BE going to, and clustered mainly around inchoative (‘coming into being’) (cf. Olmen and Mortelmans 2009; thanks to Martin Hilpert for drawing our attention to this reference).

Contexts for Constructionalization

229

One of the item-specific changes discussed in this chapter is the development of several (5.3.3). This case may appear to be different from e.g. a lot of, BE going to, and the pseudo-clefts because the original use of several in the meaning ‘distinct’ was lost. However, the steps of development are coherent in the way De Smet proposes for actualization. Breban discusses in several places (e.g. 2009, 2010), that adjectives of difference like different and other show partially similar histories, suggesting that their earlier histories may be reflected in later distributions, meanings, and paths of change. She identifies a subschema of adjectives of difference with NP-internal structure where later uses are moulded in part by earlier structural uses. As reference to schemas for different uses of adjectives of difference suggests, not all persistence is a matter of item-specific actualization changes. In her discussion of critical morphosyntactic contexts for grammaticalization, Diewald (2002, 2006) says that they do not persist after grammaticalization, unlike untypical contexts (implicatures) which do persist (2006: 4). Her example is from the development of modals in German. In this case what was lost was a modal morphological schema. A constructional approach helps us distinguish between item-specific actualization in which ties to older meanings and distribution can be shown at least in some circumstances not only to enable changes but also to be maintained. When schemas disappear this is of course not the case. However, original enabling schemas have not disappeared in the case of binominal quantifiers, [not the ADJest N1 in the N2], BE going to, pseudo-cleft or adjectives of difference. In the case of lexical constructionalization, persistence of enabling contexts is harder to determine. The item-specific development of Welsh nôl ‘fetch’ discussed in chapter 4.9, appears, according to Willis’s (2007) analysis, to conform to step-bystep development in which later steps are constrained by earlier ones. To what extent original steps leading to compounding mould later innovations in the schema remains to be studied. In the case of -lac, as noted in section 5.3.1, the earlier OE compounds suggested a significant element of physical dynamism and energy, which itself suggests persistence of the lexical meaning of lac ‘game, fight’. In some cases it is, however, not always clear how a particular micro-construction in the schema conforms to this generalization, cf. wedlock ‘marriage vow’ and ME shendlac ‘disgrace’. Whether bases for other derivational constructions, e.g. -dom show equally little evidence of constraints from persistence is a matter for further research. As is to be expected, if a schema is lost and subsequent constructionalization of an atomic micro-construction takes place (see garlic, barn and stirrup), there appears to be no persistence of either enabling/critical contexts or untypical contexts. As is the case with other aspects of lexical constructionalization, the persistence of enabling contexts appears to be much more variable than is the case in the development of grammatical constructions.

230

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

5.5 Summary In this and prior chapters we have shown that: (a) Context is a pivotal factor in constructional change. (b) As has been suggested in the grammaticalization literature, the contribution of contexts is different prior to and after constructionalization. Replication of pragmatic and morphosyntactic contexts involves constructional changes which may lead to a ‘switch/isolating’ context and constructionalization—the development of a formnew-meaningnew construction. (c) In the case of new grammatical micro-constructions, prior to constructionalization pragmatic modulation and use in preferred ‘critical morphosyntactic’ contexts occur. Post-constructionalization, the new micro-constructions tend to be reinforced and crystallized partly as a result of various types of context expansion, and partly as a result of becoming members of a larger schema. The types of context expansion are those proposed in Himmelmann (2004): expanded collocations (host-class expansion), hence expanded semantic contexts and pragmatic modulations, as well as expanded syntactic distributions. Reductions set in with routinizations and frequent use, especially in informal and spoken registers. Obsolescence or restriction to niches (narrow syntactic contexts) may follow. (d) In the case of new lexical schematic constructions, prior to constructionalization pragmatic modulation and use with preferred lexical subclasses (hostclass sets) occur. The context here may be understood to be the local network context, but the pre-constructionalization changes are often correlated with genre or text type. Post-constructionalization new construction-types may be formed on the schematic template; routinized use and competition among templates may lead to structural reduction, possibly obsolescence of both micro-constructions and schemas, as discussed in chapter 4. (e) Constructions in the network with similar meaning and form may be important contextual factors and serve as models or attractors. (f ) The larger context of systemic changes in the language is an important factor. (g) Critical contexts may persist at the item-specific level or at the schematic level. (h) Persistence may be structural as well as semantic. In sum, individual changes in individual contexts need to be understood in terms of the meaning and form of the original constructs in which a construction is used, the preferred schematic constructions from which they inherit properties, the network of the (sub)schemas into which they are recruited, and the relevant wider changes occurring in the language at the time.

6 Review and Future Prospects 6.1 Introduction In this brief chapter we summarize the main objectives of the book, and present a synopsis of what our research has uncovered as we attempted to meet those objectives (6.2). We then suggest some areas for further research (6.3).

6.2 The major objectives Our purpose in this book has been to explore ways in which aspects of language change can be conceptualized from the perspective of cognitive construction grammar, broadly construed. The key contribution of a constructional perspective to rethinking earlier work on change is that the theoretical architecture encourages us to think about change in form and meaning equally, as well as the creation of and changes to links between constructions in a network. It is for this reason that we have invoked the notion of a language network throughout the book. The network model allows us to consider, in a consistent and uniform way, changes both within and between signs, as well as the creation of new signs. Changes within signs we have considered to be constructional changes: these are ‘internal’ to a node in the network. The creation of a new lexical micro-construction may be instantaneous, e.g. a new node is created as a result of a language user borrowing a lexical construction from another language, or through a word-formation process such as conversion of a lexical construction from one category to another. Alternatively the creation of a new micro-construction or schema may be the product of a series of constructional changes elsewhere in the network. This gradual creation of a new node may result in the reconfiguration of links between nodes in the network. It is what we have described as gradual constructionalization and have focused on in this book. Constructionalization applies to both micro-constructions and schemas. In discussing the implications of this approach, we hope we have laid out some foundational points for further work within this framework. While individually they are for the most part reformulations of proposals well-known from the literature on language change, what is important in our framework is that together they form a coherent set of theoretical claims regarding the nature of constructional change:

232

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

(a) Both form and meaning need to be considered equally in studying change. (b) Change needs to be considered from both specific (micro-) and schematic (macro-)perspectives. (c) Change needs to be considered in terms of hypotheses about what types of processes occur at which phases of change in a construction, and how a new construction comes into being. (d) Since lexical and grammatical changes are on a continuum from contentful to procedural poles, they need to be viewed as complementary, not orthogonal. (e) Change needs to be understood in terms of usage and networks. (f) Innovations (i.e. features of an individual network) can be recognized as changes only when conventionalized and taken up by others (i.e. they become manifest in a population network). (g) Change typically occurs in small discrete steps (gradualness over time), resulting in variation (synchronic gradience). (h) Being gradient, conventional patterns and norms of use allow for changes to emerge over time. (i) Analogization and alignment to sets are important mechanisms of change, but as all change involves neoanalysis, neoanalysis is the more inclusive type of change. (j) Micro-constructions and the schemas in which they participate have their own histories, constrained and influenced by the broader system of which they take part. We have engaged with the literature on grammaticalization and lexicalization because it has been so influential in recent decades and so readily lends itself to rethinking in the light of construction grammar. In our view, the ‘value added’ of the constructional approach to language change that we have developed in this book is that a usage-based network approach to change in signs at multiple levels of abstractness allows us to rethink ways of approaching some of the complexities of language change. Specifically: (a) Grammatical and lexical constructionalization are not equivalent to either grammaticalization or lexicalization. Rather, certain aspects of grammaticalization and lexicalization can be incorporated within a more comprehensive view of language change as sign change. (b) Evidence of a continuum between contentful and procedural poles of the constructional gradient show that grammaticalization and lexicalization are not orthogonal developments. This is especially clear when developments that show the growth of partially contentful and partially procedural constructions are considered, and when cases of degrammaticalization are rethought in the light of specific versus schematic changes.

Review and Future Prospects

233

(c) An approach based in form-meaning pairings obviates the need for elaborate interfaces between modules. (d) The ability to see how networks, schemas, and micro-constructions are created or grow and decline, as well as the ability to track the development of patterns at both levels, allow the researcher to see how each micro-construction has its own history within the constraints of larger patterns, most immediately schemas, but also larger related network nodes. (e) Expansion and reduction are intertwined. Therefore, directionality of change is more nuanced than has often been thought. We have suggested some areas of current cognitive construction grammar that would benefit from rethinking in the light of change. Among them are the notions of: (a) Networks and subgroupings within those networks. (b) Compositionality. This is best thought of in terms of a distinction between compositionality on the meaning side and analyzability on the form side. (c) Projecting original uses from present variation (see 3.4.3). (d) Coercion as ‘requiring’ particular interpretations given mismatches between lexical (contentful) and grammatical (procedural) meaning (see 5.2.2). It is probable that coercion is not needed as a concept separate from metonymy and best-fit interpretations. (e) The distinction between ‘patterns of coining’ and constructions (4.7). As in the case of our foundational points for further work on aspects of language change, most of these issues are not new. We hope our perspective has drawn attention to particular problems and suggested some ways of moving the debates forward. 6.2.1 A summative example: ish We turn now to a brief example involving constructionalization and constructional changes which we consider to illustrate many of the themes of the book. We have chosen this example because we believe it demonstrates the ‘value-added’ nature of a constructional approach. Our example is English ish. This change in English has been discussed from the perspective of (anti-) grammaticalization by Kuzmack (2007), degrammaticalization by Norde (2009) and constructionalization by Trousdale (2011). For the earliest period, OE, Kuzmack (2007) distinguishes two types of affix deriving adjectives: (1)

a. ish1, which is suffixed to nouns referring to nations or ethnic groups (e.g. English, Welsh, Jewish). b. ish2, which is suffixed to ‘generic nouns’ to form adjectives meaning ‘of the nature of or like X’.

234

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

Since in both cases the derivational word-formation is denominal and both have similar semantics, we suggest that in OE there was a word-formation schema of the type in (2): (2)

OE ish schema [[Ni.isc]aj $ [having character of SEMi]PROPERTY]j]

This schema had two subschemas, one in which N refers to nations or ethnic groups (Ethnic ish): (3)

Ethnic ish subschema [[Ni.isc]aj $ [having character of ethnic groupi]PROPERTY]j]

This Ethnic ish subschema became recessive in later ME, and is no longer productive. While some of its members became morphologically more transparent (e.g. Scott.ish, replacing the OE form Scytt.isc), in several cases there was segmental attrition due to frequent use, the original bi-morphemic structure was lost (e.g. Welsh), and some members, e.g. Greek.ish, ceased to be used, a phenomenon typical of schema reorganization. The second subschema (Associative ish), with common nouns as its base, originated in OE, but did not become very productive until EModE. The subschema in this case is: (4)

Associative ish subschema [[Ni.isc]aj $ [having character of entityi]PROPERTY]j]

Early examples are cild.isc ‘childlike’, which occurs in OE, but was not used with any token frequency in the texts that remain to us until ME, menn.isc ‘human’, and fool. ish (a ME formation). As the examples suggest, many came to be pragmatically pejorative, and later bases are often semantically negative (Marchand 1969: 305 cites several including hell.ish and hogg.ish). The pragmatic extension from ‘typical of N’ to ‘typical of and with the negative characteristics of N’ is a constructional change. The Associative ish subschema continues to be productive, especially with pejorative pragmatics. In some cases the suffix .ish implied not only ‘characteristic of ’ but, more weakly ‘like/sort of ’ as in the case of water.ish, which MED glosses as ‘consisting of a great deal of water, dilute’. In the ME period a new set of bases started to be used: colour adjectives (e.g. yellow.ish, blu.ish). In these contexts the suffix .ish came to code the meaning ‘like, sort of ’ (Approximative ish). Kuzmack (2007) refers to this use as ish3. She points out that while what she calls ish2, as in childish (i.e. Associative ish), emphasizes similarity to the base, this new meaning of the suffix .ish emphasizes dissimilarity. This change in meaning may at first blush appear to be an instance of a constructional change. However, the development of Approximative ish is a

Review and Future Prospects

235

constructionalization, since the form to which the suffix attaches may be ADJ as well as N and the meaning is different from that of Associative ish: (5)

Approximative ish schema [[Ai/Ni.ish]aj $ [having character like SEMi]PROPERTY]j]

It continues to be productive. In the nineteenth century we find expansion of ish to complex bases, sometimes compounds, sometimes clauses. As Kuzmack points out, this expansion, which is a constructional change in our terminology, is found with both Associative ish and Approximative ish. However, in the data, ish is more frequently instantiated by the former. (6) exemplifies Associative ish, where ish means ‘characteristic of ’ and the form is no longer constrained to unmodified N. This suggests a constructional change from suffix to clitic may have taken place. (6) A clean cravatish formality of manner. (1836 Dickens, Sketches by Boz [OED -ish suffix1, 2]) Kuzmack (2007) cites pale yellow-ish (with modified adjective), right now-ish as expansions of Approximative ish. A recent example is (7), in which ish has scope over the premodifying adjective (new), not the noun (member) to which it is loosely attached. Such a construct is harder to parse than those with Associative ish since the structural links are looser: (7) New member (ish) first ever thread (2008 http://www.cliosport.net/forum/ showthread.php?328235-New-member-(ish)-first-ever-thread; accessed Dec. 3rd 2012) Kuzmack identifies what we call Approximative ish as the source for ish used as a stand-alone word. This is in fact a further constructionalization. Since the new form develops a particular procedural meaning, it is a partially grammatical constructionalization: it has undergone formal neoanalysis (from clitic to independent word), and semantic neoanalysis (from an approximator to an epistemic marker, as we will argue immediately below). In (8) it is used as an answer in dialogue and means ‘Yes, more or less, sort of ’. The text is a script for a play. (8)

CANARY

LLOYD CANARY LLOYD CANARY LLOYD

How are you? . . . You’ve had two divorces and a pug named Pip. You collect hats and advise people to drink great quantities of spring water. You look completely different. You look the same. Ish. I mean, my nose. Well, that. At least you’re alive.

236

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes CANARY LLOYD CANARY LLOYD

Ish. I thought you were dead. We’ve said all that. Right. (1994 Beth, Revelers [COHA])

In (8) the semantics of independent ish is the same as that of the suffix meaning ‘like/ sort of ’. Norde (2009: 225) points out that use of ish as an independent word is different from that of clipped forms like ism, ‘which functions as a hypernym for all words ending in -ism’. This is certainly true of example (8). We may note that here it is used as an answer in a slot where Yes, No, Right, Sort of are appropriate, and therefore has been assigned not only degree modifier but also epistemic properties. It is also not a hypernym in intensified uses such as are found in (9), where ‘very very ish’ intensifies the approximativeness of ‘10pm-ish’: (9)

Show starts at 10pm-ish (very, very ish because we'll still have the CluckingBlossom fundraiser going on). (2010 http://fbxshows.com/wp/bb/topic.php?id=244; accessed May 21st 2012)

Very recently a further change has taken place, where a new adjective meaning ‘unsure’ has arisen, as illustrated by (10): (10)

If you're like me and feel a little ish about dirty dining, you'll need more than a couple drinks (2007 http://www.yelp.co.uk/biz/the-majestic-diner-atlanta? start=40; accessed Dec. 5th 2012)

While the word-formation patterns discussed involve lexical, contentful microconstructions, and independent ish has characteristics of the class of adjectives (e.g. modification by very), nevertheless, the Approximative ish micro-construction as illustrated in (8) is further toward the grammatical pole since it comes to be linked to the network of Degree Modifiers and procedural scaling elements. The network of Degree Modifiers itself expanded exponentially in the EModE period with the formation of new members, including very, pretty, fair(ly) (see Peters 1994, Nevalainen and Rissanen 2002). The development of Approximative ish as an independent word is relatively unique: it has some characteristics of an adjective (cf. intensification with very), but it does not have others, e.g. use in comparative or superlative grade. The derivational ish participates in primarily lexical schemas; in some cases, as an independent word ish is also primarily lexical. Nevertheless, those uses that involve approximation, including other uses of independent ish, link it to scaling degree modifier expressions and therefore are partially procedural (grammatical) in meaning. This has made the derivational schema less compositional, i.e. less saliently adjective-creating, and comes to code the speaker’s assessment of and degree of commitment to the veracity of the classification of the item as a member of a particular set. Furthermore, the schemas have been reorganized over time such that

Review and Future Prospects

237

the Ethnic ish schema is no longer productive. In general there has been increase in the productivity and schematicity of the schemas that did not obsolesce.

6.3 Some areas for further research The present study is only the beginning of what we hope will be a far fuller investigation of language change from a cognitive construction grammar perspective. We have explored only a small set of examples. Vast areas of language change remain to be investigated within this framework, for example word order change and the development of various types of subordination. Many challenges remain, among them how to account for phonological changes such as vowels shifts that affect constructions for the most part regardless of their meaning. Most aspects of phonological and phonetic changes directly relevant to constructionalization have not been addressed in detail here (but see Bybee 2010 for related work). Particularly, the issue of ‘chunking’ has only been alluded to in this book, yet it clearly has repercussions for what we have considered as the primary mechanism of change, i.e. neoanalysis. Since chunking is ‘a unit of memory organization’ (Newell 1990: 7), a new chunk is a newly entrenched part of a cognitive system. Bybee has observed that ‘the bias towards reduction is a result of chunking: as sequences of units are repeated the articulatory gestures used tend to reduce and overlap’. (Bybee 2010: 37)

As we have seen, as a product of constructionalization (whether grammatical like BE gonna, or lexical like barn), entrenched micro-constructions often display internal phonetic coalescence. We have discussed examples from the history of what has come to be standard English. Micro-analysis of the kind we have promoted here requires deep knowledge and understanding of textual records through time. The histories of other varieties of English, including World Englishes, and especially of other languages need to be investigated by experts in the development of those varieties and languages with similar attention to micro- as well as macro-changes. Testing the hypotheses put forward here against languages with different constructional organization than English but long histories such as Chinese and Japanese, would be particularly valuable. Especially fruitful would be studies that considered typological constructional differences among developments, for example of argument structure systems and informational structuring systems. We have been eclectic in our use of related versions of construction grammar. Valuable too would be to take the framework of a different version of construction grammar, for example, Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG), and compare how it may contribute to the study of constructionalization and constructional changes. SBCG clearly has the advantage in terms of precise formalization, and the earlier HPSG version has been used with significant success (see e.g. Fried 2008,

238

Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

2010). Issues that might be considered within an SBCG are whether it is possible for constructions to develop that consist exclusively of form only or of meaning only. A problem is that SBCG is not (or at least not uniformly) considered to be usagebased, but the precise formalization allows the analyst to track micro-changes at the appropriate level of granularity. Furthermore, detailed comparison between constructional and minimalist approaches to the kinds of changes described in this book would be welcome. Roberts (2010) approaches issues of synchronic gradience and diachronic gradualness using a model very different from that espoused in this book (see also Roberts and Roussou 2003). Yet, although he uses a model involving extended projections and fine-grained distinctions between various functional heads, he too focuses on micro-steps in morphosyntactic change, such that the gradualness that appears in the textual record is a consequence of a series of related micro-changes. While there are clearly fundamental differences between minimalist and constructional approaches to the human capacity for language, there are nonetheless some areas of convergence which might be explored in more detail1. Our work in this book has presented a qualitative approach to constructionalization and constructional changes. In this we have differed from Hilpert (2013), whose research has been conducted in the tradition of quantitative corpus linguistics. We consider the qualitative and quantitative approaches to be complementary for work in historical linguistics and envisage the possibility of bringing the two approaches together in studies of ongoing language change, where analysis of micro-variation at the level of individual speakers could be combined with quantitative analysis of macro-variation at the level of the social group. Such quantitative studies allow for a more fine-grained approach to the relationship between frequency and entrenchment, and the degree of abstraction at which groups of speakers appear to organize aspects of their linguistic knowledge. In this book, we have discussed some of the ways in which schematization appears to correlate with increases in productivity, and semantic generality, without providing concrete measures of such changes. A quantitative approach may be able to provide some insights into the nature of entrenchment of schemas, and prototype formation at the level of the micro-construction. To return to an observation made at the beginning of this section, since chunking appears to be an important factor in the development of a micro-construction, a quantitative corpus-based approach can demonstrate how, over time, a ‘chunk’ comes to be entrenched as a micro-construction (on which see Bybee 2010, who however does not use the term ‘micro-construction’). We have been keen to demonstrate the ways in which constructionalization towards the procedural pole (grammatical constructionalization) is both similar to 1

Trousdale (2012b) discusses some similarities and differences between constructional and minimalist approaches to grammatical change in an analysis of the what with construction, but this is programmatic and would benefit from a more detailed treatment.

Review and Future Prospects

239

and different from constructionalization towards the contentful pole (lexical constructionalization), and have consistently emphasized the gradient between procedural and contentful in this regard. While we have made reference to intermediate constructions, we have not discussed this ‘inbetweenness’ or ‘hybridity’ in great depth. In chapter 2, we examined in some detail the development of the wayconstruction, highlighting the fact that some linguists consider this to be a kind of lexical change, while others consider it to be a grammatical change. We showed that recent changes suggest that the construction is becoming more procedural, gaining an aspectual function. It is therefore becoming hybrid. Other constructions are even more finely poised on the procedural-contentful gradient. As mentioned in chapter 1.6.3, discussing examples such as He gave the team a talking to ‘He berated the team’, Trousdale (2008a), argued that the micro-construction [[NPi GIVE NPj [a V-ing]NP] $ [‘NPi physically attack or berate NPj’]] is a hybrid construction. Part of the construction, associated primarily with the function of give, but including also the roles played by the various NPs, is procedural, denoting telic aspect. Part of the construction, associated with the meaning of the V, is referential and idiomatic, since giving someone a talking to involves more than simply talking to them. Furthermore, while the construction is only partly compositional, it is partly analyzable (e.g. the noun in the third NP may be premodified by an adjective). The construction appears not to be very productive (it is certainly less productive than other related constructions which have light verbs, like take a walk or have a bath), nor is it highly general. In other words, the hybrid nature of the construction makes it unlike a highly grammatical construction (e.g. the WH-pseudo-cleft) and unlike a highly lexical construction (e.g. garlic) along the key parameters we have used throughout the book, schematicity, productivity and compositionality. We consider further work on the properties and historical development of hybrid constructions to be particularly important. To conclude, we consider the constructional approach adopted in this book to provide the foundation for a systematic qualitative treatment of the development of procedural, referential and hybrid signs. We have restricted ourselves to a discussion of signs used by (many) speakers of English, and have concentrated on those developments which characterize the creation of procedural or contentful signs, with less attention to the development of intermediate constructions. Our focus has been to illustrate not only the development of micro-constructions, but also the loss and gain of schemas over time, and the subsequent changes to and realignments of micro-constructions as the schemas in which they participate expand and contract diachronically. In order to do this, we have invoked the concept of a constructional network, which we believe facilitates the discussion of changes to micro-constructions and the schemas to which they are linked.

References Aarts, Bas. 1998. Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 96: 117–158. Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adamson, Sylvia. 2000. A lovely little example. Word order options and category shift in the premodifying string. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 39–66. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Typological distinctions in word formation. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 1–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allan, Kathryn. 2012. Using OED data as evidence for researching semantic change. In Kathryn Allan and Justyna A. Robinson, eds., Current Methods in Historical Semantics, 17–39. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allerton, David J. 1991. The greater precision of spoken language: Four examples in English. English Studies 72: 470–478. Andersen, Henning. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49: 765–793. Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality. In Henning Andersen, ed., Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, 225–248. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Andersen, Henning. 2008. Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Thórhallur Eythórsson, ed., Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, 11–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anderson, Earl R. 2003. Folk-Taxonomies in Early English. New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2nd ed. Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 435–440. Arber, Edward, ed. 1869. The Revelation to the Monk of Evesham. London: Murray. Arbib, Michael A. 2012. Compositionality and beyond: Embodied meaning in language and protolanguage. In Werning, Hinzen, and Machery, eds., 475–492. Archer, Dawn. 2006. (Re)initiating strategies: Judges and defendants in Early Modern English courtrooms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7: 181–211. Archer, Dawn. 2007. Developing a more detailed picture of the English courtroom (1640–1760): Data and methodological issues facing historical pragmatics. In Susan Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen, eds., Methods in Historical Pragmatics, 185–217. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25: 7–36. Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder. 2011a. Constructions: Emergent or emerging? In Auer and Pfänder, eds., 1–21.

References

241

Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder, eds. 2011b. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Axmaker, Shelley, Annie Jaisser, and Helen Singmaster, eds. 1988. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Baayen, R. Harald. 2001. Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay and Stefanie Jannedy, eds., Probabilistic Linguistics, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baayen, R. Harald and Antoinette Renouf. 1996. Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72: 69–96. Ball, Catherine N. 1991. The Historical Development of the It-Cleft. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Ball, Catherine N. 1994. The origins of the informative-presupposition it-cleft. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 603–628. Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2013. Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds. 438–457. Barðdal, Jóhanna, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova, and Lotte Sommerer, eds. Forthcoming. Historical Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. The change that never happened: The story of oblique subjects. Journal of Linguistics 39: 439–472. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2012. Reconstructing syntax: Construction Grammar and the comparative method. In Boas and Sag, eds., 257–308. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, Laurie and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston and Pullum, 1621–1722. Beadle, Richard. 2009. The York Plays: A Critical Edition of the York Corpus Christi Play as Recorded in British Library Additional MS 35290, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beavers, John, Beth Levin, and Shiao-Wei Tham. 2010. The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 46: 331–377. Bencini, Giulia. 2013. Psycholinguistics. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds. 379–396. Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-based Approach. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 126. Bergs, Alexander and Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bergs, Alexander and Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2009a. Introduction: Contexts and constructions. In Bergs and Diewald, eds., 1–14. Bergs, Alexander and Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2009b. Contexts and Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Berlage, Eva. 2012. At the interface of grammaticalisation and lexicalisation: The case of take prisoner. English Language and Linguistics 16: 35–55.

242

References

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2006. Phonological change in Optimality Theory. In Keith Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., Vol. IX: 497–505. Oxford: Elsevier. Bharucha, Jashmed J. 1987. Music cognition and perceptual facilitation: A connectionist framework. Music Perception 5: 1–30. Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Jean Aitchison and Diana M. Lewis, eds., New Media Language, 169–181. London: Routledge. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Terttu Nevalainen and Lena Kahlas-Tarkka, eds., To Explain the Present. Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Biber, Douglas and Bethany Gray. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15: 223–250. Biber, Douglas and Bethany Gray. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 314–328. Biber, Douglas, Bethany Gray, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education. Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil, and Peter Trudgill, eds., Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 34–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bisang, Walter. 2010. Grammaticalization in Chinese: A construction-based account. In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 245–277. Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, and Björn Wiemer, eds. 2004. What Makes Grammaticalization—A Look from its Fringes and its Components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, eds., Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. II: 1596–1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt and Co. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice Julie. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do not Reveal about the Mind. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AlbertLudwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau. Blythe, Richard A. and William Croft. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88: 269–304. Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultative constructions: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81: 448–464. Boas, Hans C. 2008. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies. In Jaako Leino, ed., Constructional Reorganization, 11–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Boas, Hans C. 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 233–252. Boas, Hans C. and Ivan A. Sag, eds. 2012. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

References

243

Booij, Gert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for construction morphology. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and Franz Rainer, eds., Morphology and its Demarcations, 109–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins Booij, Gert. 2007. The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. Booij, Gert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Gert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 255–273. Börjars, Kersti and Nigel Vincent. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 163–176. Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75: 1–28. Boye, Kasper and Peter Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44. Breban, Tine. 2008. The grammaticalization and subjectification of English adjectives expressing difference into plurality/distributivity markers and quantifiers. Folia Linguistica 42: 259–306. Breban, Tine. 2009. Structural persistence: A case based on the grammaticalization of English adjectives of difference. English Language and Linguistics 13: 77–96. Breban, Tine. 2010. English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Breban, Tine. 2011a. Secondary determiners as markers of generalized instantiation in English noun phrases. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 211–233. Breban, Tine. 2011b. Is there a postdeterminer in the English noun phrase? Transactions of the Philological Society 108: 248–264. Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 283–312. Brems, Lieselotte. 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14: 83–109. Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Brems, Lieselotte. 2012. The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic study of heap(s) and lot(s). Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13: 202–231. Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde, eds. 2012. Intersections of Intersubjectivity. Special issue of English Text Construction 5. Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. ‘The flowers are lovely; only they have no scent’: The evolution of a pragmatic marker. In Raimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes, and Andreas H. Jucker, eds., Anglistentag 1997, 9–33. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In Kemenade and Los, eds., 307–334. Brinton, Laurel J. 2008a. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

244

References

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008b. ‘Where grammar and lexis meet’: Composite predicates in English. In Seoane and López-Couso, eds., 33–53. Brinton, Laurel J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Broccias, Cristiano. 2012. The syntax-lexicon continuum. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 735–747. Broccias, Cristiano. 2013. Cognitive Grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 191–210. Broz, Vltako. 2011. Kennings as blends and prisms. Jezikoslovlje 12: 165–185. Brugman, Claudia and George Lakoff. 1988. Cognitive topology and lexical networks. In Steven L. Small, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Michael K. Tanenhaus, eds., Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology and Artificial Intelligence, 477–508. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. Buchstaller, Isabelle, John R. Rickford, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Thomas Wasow. 2010. The sociolinguistics of a short-lived innovation: Tracing the development of quotative all across spoken and internet newsgroup data. Language Variation and Change 22: 191–219. Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Pagliuca, ed., 235–254. Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan L. 2002a. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón and Bertram F. Malle, The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language, 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Reprinted as Chapter 15 of Bybee 2007.) Bybee, Joan L. 2002b. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14: 261–290. (Reprinted as Chapter 11 of Bybee 2007.) Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 602–623. (Reprinted as Chapter 16 of Bybee 2007.) Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733. Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. New York: Oxford University Press. Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan L. and Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13: 51–103. Bybee, Joan L. and David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82: 323–355. Bybee, Joan L. and James L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In Nancy A. Ritter, The Role of Linguistics in Cognitive Science. Special Issue of The Linguistic Review 22: 381–410. Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca, and Revere D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II: 17–58. Bybee, Joan L. Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References

245

Bybee, Joan L. and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596. Bybee, Joan L. and Dan I. Slobin. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58: 265–289. Bybee, Joan L and Rena Torres Cacoullos. 2009. The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In Roberta L. Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley, eds., Formulaic Language: Volume 1. Distribution and Historical Change, 187–217. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Campbell, Lyle. 1991. Some grammaticalization changes in Estonian and their implications. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I: 285–299. Campbell, Lyle. ed. 2001. Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment. Special issue of Language Sciences 23. Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press. Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalization and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11: 155–193. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Claridge, Claudia and Leslie Arnovick. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, eds., Historical Pragmatics, 165–192. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Clark, Eve V. and Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811. Clark, Lynn and Graeme Trousdale. 2009. The role of frequency in phonological change: Evidence from TH-Fronting in east central Scotland. English Language and Linguistics 13: 33–55. Colleman, Timothy and Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183–209. Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1975. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82: 407–28. Collins, Peter C. 1991. Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Constructions in English. London: Routledge. Cowie, Claire. 1995. Grammaticalization and the snowball effect. Language and Communication 15: 181–193. Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study of polygrammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II: 455–492. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Pearson Education. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Cuyckens, Berg, Dirven, and Panther, eds., 49–68. Croft, William. 2005. Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman and Fried, eds., 273–314. Croft, William. 2007a. Construction grammar. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 463–508.

246

References

Croft, William. 2007b. Beyond Aristotle and gradience: A reply to Aarts. Studies in Language 31: 409–430. Croft, William. 2013. Radical Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 211–232. Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Curzan, Anne. 2012. Revisiting the reduplicative copula with corpus-based evidence. In Nevalainen and Traugott., eds., 211–221. Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and Klaus-Uwe Panther, eds. 2003. Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, eds. 2003. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-based Study of Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Danchev, Andrei and Merja Kytö. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Kastovsky, ed., 59–77. Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, and An Van linden. 2008. Deictification: The development of secondary deictic meanings by adjectives in the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 12: 475–503. Davidse, Kristin, Tine Breban, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. 2010. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Degand, Liesbeth and Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, eds. 2011. Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization and/or (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of discourse markers. Thematic issue: Linguistics 49. Dehé, Nicole and Anne Wichmann. 2010. Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language 34: 36–74. Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG2), University of Helsinki, Sept. 6–8. http://www.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/llc/files/david-denison/Helsinki_ICCG2.pdf (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Denison, David. 2003. Log(ist)ic and simplistic S-curves. In Raymond Hickey, ed., Motives for Language Change, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denison, David. 2006. Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In Kemenade and Los, eds., 279–304. Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 105–128. Denison, David. 2011. The construction of SKT. Plenary paper presented at the Second VigoNewcastle-Santiago-Leuven International Workshop on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in

References

247

English (NP2), Newcastle upon Tyne, Sept 15. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/item/ ?pid=uk-ac-man-scw:172513 (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Denison, David and Alison Cort. 2010. Better as a verb. In Davidse, Vandelanotte and Cuyckens, eds., 349–383. Denison, David, Alan K. Scott, and Kersti Börjars. 2010. The real distribution of the English ‘group genitive’. Studies in Language 34: 532–564. De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755. De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and phrasal verb particles out and forth. In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 75–104. De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633. Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Diessel, Holger. 2003. The relationship between demonstratives and interrogatives. Studies in Language 27: 635–655. Diessel, Holger. 2011. Review article on Joan L. Bybee, Language, Use and Cognition. Language 87: 830–844. Diessel, Holger. 2012. Bühler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, 37–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dietz, Klaus. 2007. Denominale Abstraktbildungen des Altengischen: Die Wortbildung der Abstrakta auf -dom, -had, -lac, -ræden, -sceaft, -stæf und -wist und ihrer Entsprechungen im Althochdeutschen und im Altnordischen. In Hans Fix, ed., Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch, 97–172. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 103–120. Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions SV1-9. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/constructions/article/viewFile/24/ 29 (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Diewald, Gabriele. 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 450–461. Diewald, Gabriele. 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. In Degand and Simon-Vandenbergen, eds. Linguistics 49: 365–390. Diewald, Gabriele, Gisella Ferraresi. 2008. Semantic, syntactic and constructional restrictions in the diachronic rise of modal particles in German: A corpus-based study on the formation of a grammaticalization channel. In Seoane and López-Couso, eds., 77–110. Doyle, Aidan. 2002. Yesterday’s affixes as today’s clitics: A case study in degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 67–81. Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman, ed., Iconicity in Syntax, 343–365. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

248

References

Elmer, Willy. 1981. Diachronic Grammar: The History of Old and Middle English Subjectless Constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Erman, Britt and Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 76–93. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Erman, Britt and Beatrice Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20: 29–62. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2007. Parameterization and change in non-finite complementation. Diachronica 24: 1, 57–80. Fanego, Teresa. 2012a. Motion events in English: The emergence and diachrony of manner salience from Old English to late Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 33: 29–85. Fanego, Teresa. 2012b. Motion events in the history of English: The emergence of the ‘sound emission to motion’ construction. Paper presented at the Seventeenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL17), Zürich August 20–25. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. In Axmaker, Jaisser, and Singmaster, eds., 35–55. Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Construction Grammar Lecture Notes. http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/ ~kay/bcg/lec02.html (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Gert Webelhuth, JeanPierre Koenig and Andreas Kathol, eds., Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, 113–128. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Fillmore, Charles J. 2013. Berkeley Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 111–132. Fillmore, Charles J. and Colin F. Baker. 2001. Frame semantics for text understanding. Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop, 59–63. Pittsburgh: NAACL. Fillmore, Charles J. and Colin F. Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine, and Heiko Narrog, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 313–340. New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay. 1997. Berkeley Construction Grammar. http://www1.icsi. berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/ConGram.html (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Fillmore, Charles J. Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64: 501–538. Fischer, Kerstin, ed. 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fischer, Olga. 2004. What counts as evidence in historical linguistics? In Martina Penke and Anette Rosenbach, eds., What Counts as Evidence in Linguistics? The case of Innateness. Special issue of Studies in Language 28: 710–740. Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Olga. 2010. An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In Stathi, Gehweiler, and König, eds., 181–220. Fischer, Olga, Muriel Norde, and Harry Peridon, eds. 2004. Up and Down the Cline—The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

References

249

Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, eds. 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Fitzmaurice, Susan and Jeremy Smith. 2012. Evidence for the history of English: Introduction. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 19–36. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flickinger, Dan. 1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Francis, Elaine J. and Laura A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In Elaine J. Francis and Laura A. Michaelis, eds., Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar, 1–27. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ. Francis, Elaine J and Etsuyo Yuasa. 2008. A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44: 45–86. Fraser, Bruce. 1988. Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38: 19–33. Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and constructs: Mapping a diachronic process. In Bergs and Diewald, eds., 47–79. Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Grammar and interaction: New directions in constructional research. Constructions and Frames 2: 125–133. Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 419–437. Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman. 2004a. Construction Grammar: a thumbnail sketch. In Fried and Östman, eds., 11–86. Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman eds. 2004b. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gahl, Susanne. 2008. ‘Thyme’ and ‘Time’ are not homophones. Word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84: 474–496. Garrett, Andrew. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Jonas, Whitman and Garrett, eds., 52–72. Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In René Dirven and Ralf Pörings, eds. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 435–465. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens. 2007a. Introducing Cognitive Linguistics. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 3–21. Geeraerts, Dirk and Hubert Cuyckens, eds. 2007b. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Gelderen, Elly van, ed. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giacalone Ramat, Anna. 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paul Hopper, eds., The Limits of Grammaticalization, 107–127. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

250

References

Giegerich, Heinz J. 2001. Synonymy blocking and the Elsewhere Condition: Lexical morphology and the speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 65–98. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2004. Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics 8: 1–24. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2005. Associative adjectives and the lexicon-syntax interface. Journal of Linguistics 41: 571–591. Giegerich, Heinz J. 2012. The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics 16: 341–359. Gildea, Spike. 1997. Evolution of grammatical relations in Cariban: How functional motivation precedes syntactic change. In T. Givón, ed., Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective, 155–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gildea, Spike. 2000. On the genesis of the verb phrase in Cariban languages: Diversity through reanalysis. In Spike Gildea, ed., Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization Theory, 65–105. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2008. Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In Trousdale and Gisborne, eds., 219–256. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2011. Constructions, Word Grammar and grammaticalization. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., Cognitive Linguistics 22: 155–182. Gisborne, Nikolas and Amanda Patten. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 92–104. Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II: 257–310. Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327–56. Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 219–224. Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 15–31. Goldberg, Adele E and Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80: 532–568. Gonzálvez-Álvarez, Dolores, Ana Elina Martínez-Insua, Javier Pérez-Guerra, and Esperanza Rama-Martínez, eds. 2011. The Structure of the Noun Phrase in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Explorations. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 15. Gonzálvez-Garcia, Francisco. 2011. What snowclones reveal about actual language use in Spanish: A constructionalist view. Paper presented at the Forty-fourth Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europea (SLE44), Logroño, September 8–11.

References

251

Goodwin, Charles and Alessandro Duranti, eds. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, Lisa J. 2002. African American English: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1991. The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive and expansive desemanticization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I: 301–314. Gries, Stefan Th. 2004. Shouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of the structure of blends. Linguistics 42: 639–667. Gries, Stefan Th. and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. Hagège, Claude. 1993. The Language Builder: An Essay on the Human Signature in Linguistic Morphogenesis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, ed., 3–28. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues: A Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Richard Waltereit. 2006. GCI theory and language change. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38: 235–268. Harley, Trevor A. 2008. The Psychology of Language. Hove: Psychology Press. Harris, Alice and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Typological Changes in the Lexicon: Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22: 315–351. Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068. Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. The relevance of extravagance: A reply to Bart Geurts. Linguistics 38: 789–798. Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Norde and Peridon, eds., 17–44. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanation of syntactic universals. In Theresa Biberauer, ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 75–107. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology. Is everything relative? Linguistics 39: 1041–1070. Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix ordering revisited. Language 78: 527–555. Hay, Jennifer and R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 342–348. Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 83–101.

252

References

Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske. Hengeveld, Kees, ed. 2011. Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the Noun Phrase: Studying many a Noun in COHA. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 233–244. Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, WordFormation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hilpert, Martin. Forthcoming. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Himmelmann, and Wiemer, eds., 21–42. Hinterhölzl, Roland and Svetlana Petrova, eds. 2009. Information Structure and Language Change: New Approaches to Word Order Variation in Germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hinzen, Wolfram, Markus Werning, and Edouard Machery. 2012. Introduction. In Werning, Hinzen and Machery, eds., 1–16. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus—a linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28: 17–30. Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpusbased Study. London: Routledge. Hoffmann, Sebastian and Joybrato Mukherjee. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32: 5–24. Hoffmann, Thomas and Graeme Trousdale, eds. 2011. Variation, Change and Constructions in English. Special issue of Cognitive Linguistics 22. Hoffmann, Thomas and Graeme Trousdale, eds. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and Diachrony of English Periphrastic Causatives. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Jon Aske, Natasha Berry, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip, eds., Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 139–157. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II: 17–35.

References

253

Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Mario Pütz, Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven, eds., Applied Cognitive Linguistics I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hopper, Paul J. 2008. Emergent serialization in English: Pragmatics and typology. In Jeff Good, ed., Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 252–284. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul J. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer and Pfänder, eds., 22–44. Hopper, Paul J. and Janice Martin. 1987. Structuralism and diachrony: The development of the indefinite article in English. In Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carrubo, and Giuliano Bernini, eds., Papers from the 7 th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 295–304. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury, ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd revised ed. Horie, Kaoru. 2011. Versatility of nominalizations: Where Japanese and Korean contrast. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, and Janick Wrona, eds., Nominalization in Asian Languages. Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, 473–496. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Horn, Laurence R. 2001. A Natural History of Negation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ. (Originally published by Chicago University Press, 1989.) Horobin, Simon. 2012. Editing early English texts. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 53–62. Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Anelli Meurman-Solin and Arja Nurmi, eds., Studies in Variation, Contact and Change in English, Vol. I: Annotating Variation and Change. eVARIENG. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/huber/ (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, Richard A. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Hudson, Richard A. 2007a. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hudson, Richard A. 2007b. Word Grammar. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds. 509–39. Hudson, Richard A. 2008. Word grammar and construction grammar. In Trousdale and Gisborne, eds., 257–302. Hudson, Richard A. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg, ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI Publ. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

254

References

Jackendoff, Ray. 2013. Constructions in the Parallel Architecture. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 70–92. Jäger, Gerhard and Annette Rosenbach. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 85–113. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok, ed., Style in Language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. In Campbell, ed., 265–340. Jonas, Dianne, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett, eds. 2012. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as ‘grammaticalization’? In Campbell, ed., 163–186. Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization ‘theory’. In Fischer, Norde and Peridon, eds., 45–71. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda. 2003a. On language, change and language change—or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 3–180. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda, eds. 2003b. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1991. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 449–454, Chicago, IL. Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language 72: 533–578. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine and Tania A. Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897. Karttunen, Lauri. 2013. You will be lucky to break even. In Tracy Holloway King and Valeria dePaiva, eds., From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, 167–180. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publ. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1991. Historical English Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In Richard M. Hogg, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. I: The Beginnings to 1066, 290–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1994. Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kay, Paul. 2004. Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics, 675–700. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kay, Paul. 2013. The limits of (construction) grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 32–48. Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y ? construction. Language 75: 1–34. Kay, Paul and Laura Michaelis. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger and Paul Portner, eds., Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Vol 3, 2271–2296. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. Translated by Brigitte Nerlich. London: Routledge. (Originally published in 1990 in German.)

References

255

Kemenade, Ans van and Bettelou Los, eds. 2006. The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Schemas and lexical blends. In Cuyckens, Berg, Dirven and Panther, eds., 69–97. Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, 171–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kiparsky, Paul. 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Whitman, and Garrett, eds., 15–51. Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. Kohnen, Thomas and Christian Mair. 2012. Technologies of communication. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 261–284. König, Ekkehard and Letizia Vezzosi. 2004. The role of predicate meaning and the development of reflexivity. In Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer, eds., 213–244. Koops, Christian and Martin Hilpert. 2009. The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity: Diachronic and cross-linguistic aspects of pseudo-clefts. In T. Givón and Masayoshi Shibatani, eds., Syntactic Complexity, Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution, 215–238. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2009. ‘A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon’: Towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Johannes Helmbrecht, Yoko Nishina, Yong-Min Shin, Stavros Skopeteas, and Elisabeth Verhoeven, eds., Form and Function in Language Research, 329–346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. London: Routledge. Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975[1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. In Jerzy Kuryłowicz, Esquisses linguistiques, Vol. II: 38–54. Munich: Fink. (Originally published in Diogenes 51: 55–71, 1965.) Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kuzmack, Stefanie. 2007. Ish: a new case of antigrammaticalization? Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), Anaheim, January 4–7. Kytö, Merja and Suzanne Romaine. 2005. We had like to have been killed by thunder & lightning: The semantic and pragmatic history of a construction that like to disappeared. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6: 1–35. Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83: 344–387. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamb, Sidney. 1998. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

256

References

Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, Knud. 2001. A framework of the analysis of cleft-constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, ed. 57–139. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow and Kemmer, eds., 1–63. Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive, radical, and less so. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J., and M. Sandra Peña Cervel, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. Constructing the meaning of personal pronouns. In Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, and Thomas Berg, eds., Aspects of Meaning Construction, 171–187. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 79–91. Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair and Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318. Lehmann, Christian. 1989. Grammatikalisierung und Lexikalisierung. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 11–19. Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In Marinel Gerritsen and Dieter Stein, eds., Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change, 395–416. Berlin: Mouton. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA (2nd revised ed. of Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch, 1982). Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 1–18. Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. In Gabriele Diewald, ed., Grammatikalisierung. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32: 152–187. Lehmann, Christian. 2008. Information structure and grammaticalization. In Seoane and López-Couso, eds., 207–229.

References

257

Levin, Beth and T. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical subordination. Chicago Linguistic Society 24, Part I: 275–289. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 139–169. Lewis, Diana. 2003. Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course. In Ton van der Wouden, Ad Foolen, and Piet Van de Craen, eds., Particles. Special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 79–91. Li, Charles N. ed. 1977. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press. Liberman, Mark. 2006. The proper treatment of snowclones in ordinary English. Language Log, February 4. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002806.html (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991a. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67: 475–509. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991b. On the gradualness of grammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I: 37–80. Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, David W. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell. Lightfoot, Douglas J. 2011. Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 438–449. Lindquist, Hans and Christian Mair, eds. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lindström, Therese Å. M. 2004. The History of the Concept of Grammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Sheffield. Lipka, Leonhard. 2002. English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics and Wordformation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag (3rd revised ed. of An Outline of English Lexicology, 1990). Los, Bettelou. 2009. The consequences of the loss of verb-second in English: Information structure and syntax in interaction. English Language and Linguistics 13: 79–125. Los, Bettelou and Erwin Komen. 2012. Clefts as resolution strategies after the loss of a multifunctional first position. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 884–898. Losiewicz, Beth L. 1992. The Effect of Duration on Linguistic Morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 2004. Talk that Counts: Age, Gender, and Social Class Differences in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 121–150. Mair, Christian. 2012. From opportunistic to systematic use of the Web as corpus: Do-support with got (to) in contemporary American English. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 245–255. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Muenchen: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

258

References

Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3: 335–352. Mattiello, Elisa. 2013. Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives and Related Phenomena. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Meillet, Antoine. 1958[1912]. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Antoine Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130–148. Paris: Champion. (Originally published in Scientia (Rivista di scienza) XXII, 1912.) Meillet, Antoine. 1958[1915/16]. Le renouvellement des conjonctions. In Antoine Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 159–174. Paris: Champion. (Originally published in Annuaire de l’École pratique des Hautes Études, 1915–1916.) Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 2012. The connectives and, for, but, and only as clause and discourse type-indicators in 16th- and 17th-century epistolary prose. In Meurman-Solin, López-Couso and Los, eds., 164–196. Meurman-Solin, Anneli, María José López-Couso, and Bettelou Los, eds. 2012. Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press. Michaelis, Laura A. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Cuyckens, Dirven, and Taylor, eds., 163–210. Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1–67. Michaelis, Laura A. 2013. Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 133–152. Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421. Mossé, Ferdinand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. Paris: Klincksieck. Muysken, Peter. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Narrog, Heiko and Bernd Heine, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press. Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2012. Mechanisms of language change in a functional system. The recent semantic evolution of future time expressions. Journal of Historical Linguistics 2: 83–132. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991a. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing on Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991b. Motivated archaism: The use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English in liturgical prose. In Kastovsky, ed., 303–320. Nevalainen, Terttu and Matti Rissanen. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24: 359–380. Nevalainen, Terttu and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press. Nevis, Joel A. 1986. Decliticization and deaffixation in Saame: Abessive taga. In Brian D. Joseph, ed., Studies in Language Change (The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics), 1–9. Newell, Allen. 1990. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References

259

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. In Campbell, ed., 187–229. Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14: 177–202. Noël, Dirk and Timothy Colleman. 2010. Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15: 157–182. Norde, Muriel. 2002. The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and beyond. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 45–65. Norde, Muriel 2006. Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29: 201–238. Norde, Muriel 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, Lars Heltoft and Lene Schøsler. 2011. Connecting Grammaticalisation. The Role of Paradigmatic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538. Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma. 1999. Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 71: 135–142. O’Connor, Edward. 2007. The snowclones data base. http://edward.oconnor.cx/2007/07/snowclones-database (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Olmen, Daniël van and Tanja Mortelmans. 2009. Movement futures in English and Dutch: A contrastive analysis of be going to and gaan. In Anastasios Tsangalidis, Roberta Facchinetti, and F. Frank Robert Palmer, eds., Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer, 357–386. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Östman, Jan-Ola. 2005. Construction discourse: A Prolegomenon. In Östman and Fried, eds., 121–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Östman, Jan-Ola and Mirjam Fried, eds. 2005. Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extension. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pagliuca, William, ed. 1994. Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Parkes, M. B. 1991. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: University of California Press. Partee, Barbara. 1984. Compositionality. In Fred Landman and Frank Veltman, eds., Varieties of Formal Semantics, 281–312. Dordrecht: Foris. Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction. In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 221–243. Patten, Amanda L. 2012. The English IT-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer, 5th ed. Pawley, Andrew and Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt, eds., Language and Communication, 191–225. London: Longman. Payne, John and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston and Pullum, 323–523. Perek, Florent. 2012. Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics 23: 601–635.

260

References

Pérez-Guerra, Javier and David Tizón-Couto. 2009. On left-dislocations in the history of English: Theory and data hand in hand. In Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia Maienborn, eds., Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, 31–48. London: Routledge. Persson, Gunnar. 1988. Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy: The types of lexical ambiguity in English. In Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen and Arne Zettersten, eds., Symposium on Lexicography III: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lexicography, May 14–16, 269–280. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early English. In Kastovsky, ed., 269–288. Petré, Peter. 2012. General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics 23: 27–65. Petré, Peter and Hubert Cuyckens. 2008. Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation. In Bergs and Diewald, eds., 133–169. Pichler, Heike. 2013. The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pichler, Heike and Stephen Levey. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: General extenders in northeast England. English Language and Linguistics 15: 441–471. Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Plag, Ingo. 2006. Productivity. In Bas Aarts and April McMahon, eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics, 537–556. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8: 305–364. Poplack, Shana. 2011. Grammaticalization and linguistic variation. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 209–224. Poplack, Shana and Sali Tagliamonte. 2000. The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11: 315–342. Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of WH-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. Pullum, Geoffrey. 2003. Phrases for lazy writers in kit form. Language Log, October 27. Pullum, Geoffrey. 2004. Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log, January 16. Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Bert Cappelle and Yury Shtyrov. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In Hoffmann and Trousdale, eds., 397–416. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Queller, Kurt. 2003. Metonymic sense shift: Its origin in hearers’ abductive construal of usage in context. In Cuyckens, Dirven, and Taylor, eds., 211–241. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30: 549–560. Ramat, Paolo. 2001. Degrammaticalization or transcategorization? In Chris Schaner-Wolles, John Rennison, and Friedrich Neubarth, eds., Naturally! Linguistic Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler Presented on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 393–401. Torino: Rosenbach and Sellier. Ramat, Paolo and Davide Ricca. 1994. Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion ADVERB. Rivista di Linguistica 6: 289–326.

References

261

Ratcliff, R. and G. McKoon. 1981. Does activation really spread? Psychological Review 88: 454–462. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Arja Nurmi. 2011. Grammaticalization and language change in the individual. In Narrog and Heine, eds., 251–262. Rebuschat, Patrick, Martin Rohrmeier, John A. Hawkins, and Ian Cross, eds. 2012. Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reisberg, Daniel. 1997. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind. New York: Norton. Rice, Sally. 1996. Prepositional prototypes. In Martin Pütz and René Dirven, eds., The Construal of Space in Language and Thought, 135–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Sally. 2003. Growth in a lexical network: Nine English prepositions in acquisition. In Cuyckens, Dirven, and Taylor, eds., 243–280. Rickford, John R. 1999. African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. Oxford: Blackwell. Rissanen, Matti. 1991. Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Kastovsky, ed., 321–342. Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rissanen, Matti. 2004. Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside(s). In Lindquist and Mair, eds., 151–170. Rissanen, Matti. 2007. From oþ to till: Early loss of an adverbial subordinator. In Ursula Lenker and Anneli Meurman-Solin, eds., Connectives in the History of English, 61–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Rissanen, Matti. 2012. Corpora and the study of the history of English. In Merja Kytö, ed., English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, 197–220. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Robert, Stéphane. 2005. The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Ada Hodges and David S. Rood, eds., Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, 119–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Roberts, Ian. 1993. A formal account of grammaticalization in the history of Romance futures. Folia Linguistica Historica XIII: 219–258. Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, Ian. 2010. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 45–73. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rohdenburg, Günter. 1998. Clarifying structural relationships in cases of increased complexity in English. In Rainer Schulze, ed., Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence, 189–205. Heidelberg: Gunter Narr. Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rosenbach, Anette. 2010. How synchronic gradience makes sense in the light of language change (and vice versa). In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 149–179. Rostila, Jouni. 2004. Lexicalization as a way to grammaticalization. In Fred Karlsson, ed., Proceedings of the 20th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/ kielitiede/20scl/Rostila.pdf (Accessed: May 22nd 2013).

262

References

Rostila, Jouni. 2006. Storage as a way to grammaticalization. Constructions 1/2006 http:// elanguage.net/journals/constructions/article/view/3070 (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas and Sag, eds., 69–202. Sag, Ivan A., Hans C. Boas and Paul Kay. 2012. Introducing sign-based construction grammar. In Boas and Sag, eds., 1–29. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959[1916]. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill. (Originally published in 1916 in French.) Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic Grammar: The Influence of Rhythm on Grammatical Variation and Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schlüter, Julia. 2010. To dare to or not to: Is auxiliarization reversible? In An Van linden, JeanChristophe Verstraete, and Kristin Davidse, eds., Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research, 289–325. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 117–138. Schneider, Agnes. 2012. Grammaticalization in non-standard varieties of English and Englishbased pidgins and creoles. In Nevalainen and Traugott, eds., 666–675. Schulz, Monika Edith. 2011. Possession and obligation. In Nuria Hernández, Daniela Kolbe, and Monika Edith Schulz, eds., A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects: Modals, Pronouns and Complement Clauses, 19–51. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schwenter, Scott A. 2000. Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann, eds., Cause— Condition—Concession—Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, 257–281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Peter Culicover, Adrian Akmajian, and Thomas Wasow, eds., Formal Syntax, 283–316. New York: Academic Press. Seoane, Elena and María José López-Couso, eds., in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. 2008. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1991. Grammaticization of topic into subject. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. II: 93–133. Siewierska, Anna and Willem B. Hollmann. 2007. Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Mike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen, eds., StructuralFunctional Studies in English Grammar, 83–102. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sinha, Chris. 2007. Cognitive linguistics, psychology and cognitive science. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 1266–1294. Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and in history. In John MacNamara, ed., Language Learning and Thought, 185–214. New York: Academic Press. Slobin, Dan I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Sven Strömqvist and Ludo Verhoeven, eds., Relating Events in Narrative, Vol. II. Typological and Contextual Perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smirnova, Elena. Forthcoming. Constructionalization and constructional change: The role of context in the development of constructions. In Barðdal, Gildea, Smirnova, and Sommerer, eds.

References

263

Snider, Neal. 2008. An Exemplar Model of Syntactic Priming. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Sowka-Pietraszewska, Katarzyna. 2011. The evidence from the Latinate loan-verbs for the rise of the alternative prepositional object construction in the Middle English period. Paper presented at the Helsinki Corpus Festival, Sept 28–Oct 2. Spencer-Oatey, Helen and Stefanie Stadler. 2009. The Global People Competency Framework. Competencies for Effective Intercultural Interaction. Warwick Papers in Applied Linguistics 3. http://www.globalpeople.org.uk/ (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Speyer, Augustin. 2010. Topicalization and Stress Clash Avoidance in the History of English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Stathi, Katerina, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, eds. 2010. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stenström, Anna-Brita. 2000. It’s enough funny, man: Intensifiers in teenage talk. In John M. Kirk, ed., Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, 177–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Stolova, Natalya I. 2008. From satellite-framed Latin to verb-framed Romance: Late Latin as an intermediate stage. In Roger Wright, ed., Latin Vulgaire, Latin Tardif: Actes du VIIIème Colloque International sur le Latin Vulgaire et Tardif, Oxford 6–7 Septembre 2006, 253–262. Hildesheim: Olms. Stolova, Natalya I. Forthcoming. Cognitive History of Romance Motion Verbs: Exploration in Lexical Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Axmaker, Jaisser, and Singmaster, eds., 389–405. Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Linguistics, Vol. I. Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2 Vols. Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Terkourafi, Marina. 2009. On de-limiting context. In Bergs and Diewald, eds., 17–42. Terkourafi, Marina. 2011. The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation. Language in Society 40: 343–372. Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, ed., 141–177. Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2011. The construction network hypothesis. In Construções Emergentes: Gramática de Construções e Gramaticalização. Special issue of Letras & Letras 27. http://www.letraseletras.ileel.ufu.br/viewissue.php?id=21 (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Torrent, Tiago Timponi. Forthcoming. On the relation between inheritance and change: The construction network reconfiguration hypothesis. In Barðdal, Gildea, Smirnova, and Sommerer, eds.

264

References

Torres Cacoullos, Rena and James A. Walker. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85: 321–354. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In Axmaker, Jaisser, and Singmaster, eds., 406–416. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph and Janda, eds., 624–647. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics: 18: 523–557. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008a. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger, and Tonjes Veenstra, eds., Variation, Selection, Development—Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In Bergs and Diewald, eds., 21–43. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008c. ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was . . . ’: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts. In Robin Cooper and Ruth Kempson, eds., Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, 143–177. London: King’s College Publications. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010a. Grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi and Vit Bubenik, eds., Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 269–283. London: Continuum Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010b. Dialogic contexts as motivation for syntactic change. In Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm, and William Kretzschmar, eds., Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012a. The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In Merja Kytö, ed., English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, 221–255. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2012b. On the persistence of ambiguous linguistic contexts over time: Implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In Magnus Huber and Joybrato Mukherjee, eds., Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description, 231–246. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. Forthcoming. Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In Barðdal, Gildea, Smirnova, and Sommerer, eds. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Bernd Heine, eds. 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2 Vols. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott and Heine, eds., Vol. I: 189–218. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale. 2010a. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Traugott and Trousdale, eds., 19–44. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, eds. 2010b. Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Trips, Carola. 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

References

265

Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Trousdale and Gisborne, eds., 33–67. Trousdale, Graeme. 2008b. A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure 1: 156–177. Trousdale, Graeme. 2008c. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In Susan Fitzmaurice and Donka Minkova, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, 301–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Stathi, Gehweiler, and König, eds., 51–72. Trousdale, Graeme. 2011. Ish. Paper presented at the Second International Society for the Linguistics of English Conference (ISLE2), Boston, June 17–21. Trousdale, Graeme. 2012a. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, eds., Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, 167–198. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Trousdale, Graeme. 2012b. Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with construction. In Nikolas Gisborne and Willem Hollmann, eds., Special Issue on Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics, Studies in Language 36: 576–602. Trousdale, Graeme and Nikolas Gisborne, eds. 2008. Constructional Approaches to English Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trousdale, Graeme and Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. In Muriel Norde, Alexandra Lenz, and Karin Beijering, eds., Special Issue on Current Trends in Grammaticalization Research, Language Sciences 36: 32–46. Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 273–291. Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Geeraerts and Cuyckens, eds., 82–116. Van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More thoughts on degrammaticalization. In Wischer and Diewald, eds., 19–29. Van de Velde, Freek. 2011. Left-peripheral expansion of the NP. In Dolores González-Álvarez, Ana Elina Martínez-Insua, Javier Pérez-Guerra, and Esperanza Rama-Martínez, eds., Special Issue on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Explorations, English Language and Linguistics 15: 387–415. Vandewinkel, Sigi and Kristin Davidse. 2008. The interlocking paths of development of emphasizer adjective pure. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 9: 255–287. Verhagen, Arie. 2009. The conception of constructions as complex signs: Emergence of structure and reduction to usage. Constructions and Frames 1: 119–152. Verroens Filip. 2011. La construction se mettre à: syntaxe, sémantique et grammaticalisation. PhD dissertation, University of Ghent. Verveckken, Katrien. 2012. Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics 23: 421–478. Von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel, 2nd ed.

266

References

Von Fintel, Kai. 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. NELS Proceedings 25: 175–189. Walsh, Thomas and Frank Parker. 1983. The duration of morphemic and nonmorphemic /s/ in English. Journal of Phonetics 11: 201–206. Ward, Gregory, Betty Birner and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Information packaging. In Huddleston and Pullum, 1363–1147. Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Warner, Anthony. 2004. What drove ‘do’? In Christian Kay, Simon Horobin and Jeremy J. Smith, eds., New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics: Syntax and Morphology, Vol. I: 229–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, eds., Directions for Historical Linguistics, 95–189. Austin: University of Texas Press. Werning, Markus, Wolfram Hinzen, and Edouard Machery, eds., 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. New York: Oxford University Press. White, P. R. R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23: 259–284. White, R. Grant. 1871. Words and their Uses. New York: Sheldon and Co. Wichmann, Anne, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, and Karin Aijmer. 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: A synchronic case study of of course. In Davidse, Vandelanotte and Cuyckens, eds., 103–154. Willis, David. 2007. Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics 45: 271–310. Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization—‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach, and Stein, eds., 355–70. Wischer, Ilse and Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, Alison. 2006. Formulaic language. In Keith Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. IV: 590–597. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2nd revised ed. Zhan, Fangqiong. 2012. The Structure and Function of the Chinese Copula Construction. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 990–1028. Ziegeler, Debra. 2010. Count-mass coercion, and the perspective of time and variation. Constructions and Frames 2: 33–73. Zwicky, Arnold. 2006. Snowclone mountain? Language Log. March 13. http://itre.cis.upenn. edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002924.html (Accessed: May 22nd 2013). Zwicky, Arnold M. 2007. Extris, extris. Paper presented at Stanford SemFest 7, March 16. http://www.stanford.edu/~zwicky/SemFest07.out.pdf (Accessed: May 22nd2013). Zwicky, Arnold M. 2012. Parts of the body. Paper presented at Stanford SemFest 13, March 16th.

Index of Key Historical Examples a bit of, 17, 23, 26, 27, 53, 58, 77, 93, 106, 114, 116–118, 121, 126–127, 213–214, 228 a bunch of, 27, 116, 213–214 a deal of, 49, 53, 55–56, 58, 93, 106, 126, 212–213 a heap of, 53, 58, 114–117, 201 a lot of, 17, 23–29, 36–37, 49, 53, 58, 93, 106, 114–118, 121, 125, 196, 201, 209–214 a shred of, 77, 93, 127 all but, 203–204 ALL-cleft, 136–147, 225–227

-leac ‘leek’ (OE), 12, 167, 180–181 -lian (OE), 178–179 not the ADJest N1 in the N2, 184–185 Partitive, binominal, 24–27, 49 Quantifier, binominal, 24–27, 115, 126, 201–202, 209–214 -ræden ‘condition’ (OE), 173–177, 207–209

BE going to, 18, 67, 68, 102, 106–107, 114–118, 122, 126, 158, 217–224, 228, 230 beside(s), 110–112 Ditransitive, 14, 71–72, 96 -dom, 64, 68, 169, 170–173, 207–209

-s genitive, 129–131 several, 214–217 -ship, 173, 175–176 -some, 69, 165

-fire, 179–180

-th, 17, 68–69, 181 TH-cleft, 137–139, 141, 143, 146

give X a V-ing, 26, 34, 239

X is the new Y, 151, 183–184

habeo cantare (Latin), 32, 37, 38, 97 -hood, 169, 175–177 -ish, 233–237 IT-cleft, 72–73, 146, 227

way-construction, 76–90, 114, 118, 120, 125, 150–151, 186 WHAT-cleft, 136–147, 182, 186, 187 what with, 133–135 will be lucky to, 183

-lac ‘practice’ (OE), 207–209, 229

yn ol ‘after’ (Welsh), 190–191

Index of Names Aarts, Bas, 25, 56, 74 Adamson, Sylvia, 215 Aijmer, Karin, 30, 110 Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 162 Allan, Kathryn, 61 Allen, Cynthia, 69–70 Allerton, David J., 137 Andersen, Henning, 2, 21, 36, 40, 55, 75, 98, 128, 173, 190, 203 Anderson, Earl R., 180 Anttila, Raimo, 32, 37, 99 Arber, Edward, 218 Arbib, Michael A., 19 Archer, Dawn, 41 Arnovick, Leslie, 103 Auer, Peter, 47, 143 Baayen, R. Harald, 18, 87, 152 Baker, Colin F., 9, 50 Ball, Catherine N., 73, 138 Barlow, Michael, 3 Barðdal, Jóhanna, 14, 17, 40, 113–114, 116–119 Bauer, Laurie, 153, 162, 164 Beadle, Richard, 42 Beavers, John, 33 Bencini, Giulia, 46 Berglund, Ylva, 223 Bergs, Alexander, 39, 195 Berlage, Eva, 150 Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, 36 Bharucha, Jashmed J., 50 Biber, Douglas, 41, 196, 210 Birner, Betty, 136 Bisang, Walter, 40 Blakemore, Diane, 12 Blank, Andreas, 156, 162 Bloomfield, Leonard, 150 Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice Julie, 5, 55

Blythe, Richard, 53, 68 Boas, Hans C., 2, 4, 5, 15, 17, 47, 59, 62 Booij, Gert, 8, 53, 93, 152–154, 159, 161–162, 165, 168–169, 172–173 Börjars, Kersti, 99, 124, 129–130 Boroditsky, Lera, 54 Boye, Kasper, 20, 53, 104–105, 122, 155, 162, 202 Breban, Tine, 130–131, 215, 227, 229 Brems, Lieselotte, 23, 25, 39, 49, 52–53, 58, 105, 115–116, 126–127, 211, 213–214, 228 Brinton, Laurel J., 32–34, 71, 73, 109, 156, 158–160, 163, 182 Broccias, Cristiano, 50, 90 Broz, Vltako, 168, 169 Brugmann, Claudia, 9 Buchstaller, Isabelle, 71, 193 Bybee, Joan L., 3, 11–12, 14, 16, 18, 20–21, 31, 35, 38, 43, 44, 46–48, 50, 65, 74, 94, 98, 100, 105–107, 114, 119, 120, 122, 126, 132, 183, 186, 195, 200–202, 206, 220, 227, 238 Campbell, Lyle, 34, 35, 36, 100, 127, 131, 199 Cappelle, Bert, 45 Catford, J. C., 196 Chafe, Wallace L., 197 Cheshire, Jenny, 132 Chomsky, Noam, 43 Claridge, Claudia, 103 Clark, Eve V., 167, 187 Clark, Herbert H., 167, 187 Clark, Lynn, 6 Claudi, Ulrike, 27, 98, 100, 199, 201 Colleman, Timothy, 14, 39, 40, 71 Collins, Allan M., 55 Collins, Peter C., 136 Conrad, Susan, 210 Cort, Alison, 114 Cowie, Claire, 161

Index of Names Craig, Colette G., 108 Croft, William, 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 21, 40, 48, 50, 53, 61, 62, 68, 91, 151 Cross, Ian, 50 Cruse, D. Alan, 2, 4, 7, 48, 200 Culicover, Peter W., 3 Culpeper, Jonathan, 41 Curzan, Anne, 145 Cuyckens, Hubert, 2, 155 Dahl, Östen, 100, 107 Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, 170, 172, 174–176, 178, 208 Danchev, Andrei, 218, 221 Dasher, Richard B., 26, 112, 202 Davidse, Kristin, 130, 215 De Clerck, Bernard, 14, 39, 40, 71 Degand, Liesbeth, 103 Dehé, Nicole, 110 Denison, David, 56, 74, 114, 120, 130, 211, 214 De Smet, Hendrik, 29, 38, 47, 56, 58, 115, 117, 120, 198, 203–204, 206, 223, 227–229 Diessel, Holger, 47, 136 Dietz, Klaus, 171, 174, 208 Diewald, Gabriele, 12, 28, 39, 95, 101, 103–104, 108, 195, 198, 199, 206, 217, 229 Doyle, Aidan, 131–132 Duranti, Alessandro, 202 Du Bois, John W., 124 Eckardt, Regine, 36–37, 217, 228 Eddington, David, 186 Elmer, Willy, 69 Erman, Britt, 103, 182 Eythórsson, Thórhallur, 40 Faarlund, Jan Terje, 131 Fanego, Teresa, 33, 80, 82, 87, 89 Ferraresi, Gisella, 104 Fillmore, Charles J., 3–4, 9, 39, 50, 61, 166, 185 Finegan, Edward, 196, 210 Fischer, Kerstin, 109 Fischer, Olga, 21, 36, 37, 40–41, 58, 99, 126, 127, 198, 222

269

Fitzmaurice, Susan, 40 Fleischman, Suzanne, 32 Flickinger, Dan, 161 Fodor, Jerry, 11 Francis, Elaine J., 19, 27, 36, 213–214 Fraser, Bruce, 109 Fried, Mirjam, 21, 36, 39, 40, 237 Gahl, Susanne, 110 Garrett, Andrew, 117, 196, 217, 221 Geeraerts, Dirk, 2, 65, 74, 169 Gelderen, Elly van, 75 Giacalone Ramat, Anna, 159 Giegerich, Heinz J., 153, 157, 206 Gildea, Spike, 40 Gisborne, Nikolas, 9, 11, 21, 40, 58, 63, 90, 113 Givón, Talmy, 37, 47, 65, 99–101, 128, 201 Goldberg, Adele E., 1–8, 12, 14–15, 21, 38–40, 45, 50, 54, 59–62, 72, 76–79, 84, 88–89, 114, 118, 122, 146, 200–201, 204–205 Gonzálvez-Álvarez, Dolores, 215 Gonzálvez-Garcia, Francisco, 186 Goodwin, Charles, 202 Gray, Bethany, 41 Green, Lisa J., 102 Greenbaum, Sidney, 210 Greenberg, Joseph H., 129 Gries, Stefan Th., 18 Hagège, Claude, 26 Haiman, John, 18 Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard, 200, 202 Harder, Peter, 20, 53, 104–105, 122, 155, 162, 202 Harley, Trevor A., 54 Harris, Alice, 35, 36, 199 Haselow, Alexander, 64, 162, 170–176, 208 Haspelmath, Martin, 3, 32, 36, 37, 66, 75, 97, 100, 112, 124–127, 190 Hawkins, John A., 47, 50 Hay, Jennifer, 122, 152 Heine, Bernd, 26, 28, 35, 36, 38, 94–95, 98, 100, 101, 110, 133, 198–199, 201–202 Heltoft, Lars, 19, 37, 40, 99, 136, 198

270

Index of Names

Hengeveld, Kees, 20 Herzog, Marvin, 2, 43 Higgins, Francis Roger, 136 Hilpert, Martin, 18, 20, 145, 198, 205, 222, 228, 238 Himmelmann, Nikolaus, 18, 28, 32, 106–107, 112–114, 124, 145, 156, 163, 191, 196, 203, 211, 230 Hinterhölzl, Roland, 30, 136 Hinzen, Wolfram, 19 Hoffmann, Sebastian, 43, 64, 71, 98, 106, 114 Hollmann, Willem B., 7, 39, 40 Hopper, Paul J., 32, 37, 47, 63, 65, 96, 97, 134, 143–144, 151, 155, 201, 227, 228 Horie, Kaoru, 40 Horn, Laurence R., 200 Horobin, Simon, 41 Huber, Magnus, 41–42 Huddleston, Rodney, 136, 164, 215 Hudson, Richard A., 3, 9–11, 50, 54–57, 60–61, 68, 152 Hünnemeyer, Friederike, 26, 98, 100, 199, 201 Hundt, Marianne, 18, 42, 66–67, 102, 216 Israel, Michael, 16, 39, 40, 76–82, 86, 88, 90, 93, 211 Jackendoff, Ray, 3, 12–13, 76–77, 79, 86, 87, 152 Jäger, Gerhard, 54 Jakobson, Roman, 99 Janda, Richard D., 40, 128, 190 Johansson, Stig, 210 Joseph, Brian D., 40, 147 Jurafsky, Daniel, 13, 133 Kaltenböck, Gunther, 101 Kartunnen, Lauri, 183 Kastovsky, Dieter, 110, 169 Kay, Paul, 2–4, 19–20, 39, 61, 62, 166, 182, 185–187, 195, 227 Keller, Rudi, 22, 26, 125, 202 Kemmer, Suzanne, 3, 14 Kiparsky, Paul, 37, 98, 109, 127, 129 Kiss, Katalin É., 73

Kohnen, Thomas, 41 Komen, Erwin, 227 König, Ekkehard, 26, 57, 196–197, 199 Koops, Christian, 144 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 23 Kortmann, Bernd, 134 Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt, 103 Krug, Manfred G., 67, 114, 158, 224 Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, 99, 106, 161 Kuteva, Tania A., 36, 56, 94, 101, 110, 133, 228 Kuzmack, Stefanie, 233–235 Kytö, Merja, 41, 199, 218, 221 Labov, William, 2, 41, 43, 46 Lakoff, George, 3, 4, 9, 45, 152 Lamb, Sidney, 50 Lambrecht, Knud, 73, 102, 136 Langacker, Ronald W., 1–4, 7–12, 14–16, 20, 27, 36, 44, 47–51, 53, 55, 61, 113, 122, 124, 126, 131, 133, 206, 207 Lass, Roger, 129 Leech, Geoffrey, 18, 42, 66–67, 102, 210, 216 Lehmann, Christian, 32–34, 37, 43, 65–66, 73, 75, 96–98, 100–104, 106, 108–110, 112, 122–124, 134, 136–137, 144–145, 156–160, 162, 171, 177, 190, 197 Levey, Stephen, 132 Levin, Beth, 33, 76 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara, 74, 200 Lewis, Diana, 112 Liberman, Mark, 186 Lichtenberk, Frantisek, 60, 74, 201 Lightfoot, David, 10, 36, 63, 76 Lightfoot, Douglas J., 150–151, 157, 159, 161 Lindström, Therese Å. M., 158 Lipka, Leonhard, 34, 159 Loftus, Elizabeth F., 55 López-Couso, María José, 30, 136 Los, Bettelou, 30, 136, 227 Losiewicz, Beth L., 49 McClelland, James L., 16, 18, 38, 114, 119, 122 McKoon, G., 55

Index of Names

271

McMahon, April M. S., 30 Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 215 Machery, Edouard, 19 Mair, Christian, 18, 41, 42, 43, 66–67, 102, 216, 223 Marchand, Hans, 64, 68, 176, 178, 234 Martin, Janice, 32 Martínez-Insua, Ana Elina, 215 Massam, Diane, 143 Mattiello, Elisa, 187–188 Meillet, Antoine, 35–37, 65, 102, 136, 141, 157 Meurman-Solin, Anneli, 30, 32, 136 Michaelis, Laura A., 19, 20, 182, 204–205, 206 Milroy, James, 21 Mondorf, Britta, 76, 77, 86, 89–90 Mossé, Ferdinand, 126, 221 Mukherjee, Joybrato, 71 Muysken, Peter, 74

Paul, Hermann, 46 Pawley, Andrew, 18, 182 Payne, John, 215 Perek, Florent, 62, 72 Pérez-Guerra, Javier, 139, 215 Perkins, Revere D., 31, 94, 98, 100, 106–107, 132, 195, 227 Persson, Gunnar, 201 Peters, Hans, 236 Petré, Peter, 119, 120, 155 Petrova, Svetlana, 30, 136 Pfänder, Stefan, 47 Pichler, Heike, 122, 132 Plag, Ingo, 87, 206 Plank, Frans, 63, 74 Poplack, Shana, 102, 198 Prince, Ellen F., 73, 144 Pullum, Geoffrey, 183 Pulvermüller, Friedemann, 45 Pustejovsky, James, 199

Nesselhauf, Nadja, 222 Nevalainen, Terttu, 32, 71 Nevis, Joel A., 132 Newell, Allen, 237 Newmeyer, Frederick J., 98, 127, 190 Noël, Dirk, 1, 39, 40 Norde, Muriel, 34, 99, 103, 127–132 Nørgård-Sørensen, Jens, 19, 37, 40, 99, 136, 198 Nunberg, Geoffrey, 166, 182 Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma, 217 Nurmi, Arja, 46

Queller, Kurt, 54 Quirk, Randolph, 210

O’Connor, Edward, 183 O’Connor, Mary Catherine, 3, 166 Östman, Jan-Ola, 21, 36, 225 Pagliuca, William, 31, 94, 98, 100, 106–107, 132, 195, 227 Parker, Frank, 49 Parkes, M. B., 41 Partee, Barbara, 19 Patten, Amanda L., 39, 40, 72–73, 90, 113, 136–138

Rama-Martínez, Esperanza, 215 Ramat, Paolo, 74, 127, 190 Rapoport, T., 76 Ratcliff, R., 54 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 46 Rebuschat, Patrick, 50 Reh, Mechthild, 36, 94, 100 Reisberg, Daniel, 9 Renouf, Antoinette, 87, 152 Ricca, Davide, 74 Rice, Sally, 54, 91–92 Rickford, John R., 71, 159, 193 Rissanen, Matti, 42, 68, 103, 110–111, 219, 236 Rizzi, Luigi, 33 Robert, Stéphane, 108 Roberts, Ian, 10, 21, 36, 74, 75, 238 Rohdenburg, Günter, 143 Rohrmeier, Martin, 50 Romaine, Suzanne, 199

272

Index of Names

Rosch, Eleanor, 74 Rosenbach, Annette, 54, 129 Rostila, Jouni, 1, 95–96 Roussou, Anna, 10, 21, 238 Sag, Ivan A., 2, 4, 62, 161, 166, 182 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 4, 9, 43, 53, 99, 167 Scheibman, Joanne, 122 Schiffrin, Deborah, 109 Schlüter, Julia, 30, 67 Schmid, Hans-Jörg, 55, 202 Schneider, Agnes, 35 Schøsler, Lene, 19, 37, 40, 99, 136, 198 Schulz, Monika Edith, 68 Schwenter, Scott A., 225 Scott, Alan K., 130 Selkirk, Elisabeth O., 23 Shibatani, Masayoshi, 101 Shtyrov, Yuryv, 45 Siewierska, Anna, 7 Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, 30, 103, 110 Sinha, Chris, 45 Slobin, Dan I., 33, 48, 124 Smirnova, Elena, 20 Smith, Jeremy, 40 Smith, Nicholas, 18, 42, 66–67, 102, 216 Snider, Neal, 54 Sowka-Pietraszewska, Katarzyna, 72 Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 144 Speyer, Augustin, 30 Stadler, Stefanie, 144 Stefanowitsch, Anatol, 18 Stenström, Anna-Brita, 215 Stolova, Natalya I., 33 Svartvik, Jan, 210 Sweetser, Eve E., 105, 200 Syder, Frances Hodgetts, 18, 182 Tagliamonte, Sali, 102 Talmy, Leonard, 33, 78 Taylor, John R., 47, 166 Terkourafi, Marina, 13, 202, 224

Tham, Shiao-Wei, 33 Thompson, Sandra A., 143–144 Timberlake, Alan, 203 Tizón-Couto, David, 139 Tomasello, Michael, 4, 45, 47 Torrent, Tiago Timponi, 72 Torres Cacoullos, Rena, 18, 68, 102, 198 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 11, 16, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33–34, 36, 38–40, 56, 57, 71, 73, 96–97, 105, 108, 112, 116, 136, 138, 145, 155, 156–160, 163, 182, 193, 195, 199, 201, 202, 205, 217–219, 223, 225 Trips, Carola, 162, 169–170, 175–176, 208 Trousdale, Graeme, 5, 11, 14, 16, 22, 26, 35, 38, 39, 56, 63, 68, 70, 74, 75, 95, 112, 130–131, 132, 134–135, 150, 163, 164, 190, 193, 199, 238, 239 Tuggy, David, 14, 200 Van der Auwera, Johan, 34, 190 Van linden, An, 130 Van de Velde, Freek, 14, 131, 214, 131, 214 Vandewinkel, Sigi, 215 Verhagen, Arie, 7 Verroens, Filip, 40 Verveckken, Katrien, 39, 40 Vezzosi, Letizia, 196–197 Vincent, Nigel, 99, 124, 129–130 Von der Gabelentz, Georg, 102, 124 Von Fintel, Kai, 12 Walker, James A., 18, 68, 102, 198 Walsh, Thomas, 49 Waltereit, Richard, 202 Ward, Gregory, 136 Warner, Anthony R., 21, 63, 74 Warren, Beatrice, 182 Wasow, Thomas, 71, 166, 182, 193 Weinreich, Uriel, 2, 43 Werning, Markus, 19 White, P. R. R., 225

Index of Names White, R. Grant, 126 Wichmann, Anne, 30, 110 Willis, David, 190–191, 229 Wischer, Ilse, 101, 156, 160, 162 Wray, Alison, 182

Yuasa, Etsuyo, 27, 36, 213–214 Zhan, Fangqiong, 40 Ziegeler, Debra, 205 Zwicky, Arnold M., 143, 166, 184

273

Index of Subjects Acquisition, 21, 35, 47, 48 adult, 21, 125 Activation, 133, 186, 200, 203, 207, 219, 223, 225 see also Spreading activation Actualization, 120, 203, 227–229 Adjective as base, 69, 171, 175, 178, 181 as context, 58, 93, 126, 172 of difference, 214–217, 228–229 quantifying, 55–56, 212 Adjunct, 72, 81, 133, 219 Adposition, 97–98, 108 Adverb deadjectival, 215–217 directional in the way-construction, 76–90 use as pragmatic marker, 71, 110, 111 status on lexical-grammatical gradient, 73–74, 95, 132, 157, 187, 215 use as subordinator, 108, 111 Agent argument, 15, 186, 220 Affix as output of change, 36, 97–99, 100, 162, 165, 169 see also Debonding Affixoid, 153–229 characterized, 153–154 Alignment, 148, 232 degree of, 57, 68, 138 Ambiguity, 29, 52, 185, 191, 199–200, 212, 219 Analogical thinking, 21–22, 38, 57–58, 92, 98–100, 126–127, 148, 195, 207, 222, 224 Analogization, 35, 37–38, 57–58, 92, 93, 96, 99, 119, 126, 146, 148, 203, 222, 232 Analogy, 21, 35, 37–38, 56–58, 99, 109, 118–119, 126–128, 146, 203–204, 222 exemplar-based, 35, 37, 57, 74, 92–93, 96, 109, 127–128, 165 UG-based, 109

Analyzability, 20, 27, 69, 113, 121, 182, 233 Anaphora, 109, 141, 143–145, 182, 211, 214 Argument structure, 5, 9, 12, 15, 40, 60, 69–70, 108, 113, 187 Aspect, 12, 71, 72, 108, 219, 239 habitual, 65, 94 iterative, 13, 26, 87–88, 90, 94, 178–179 stative, 107, 115, 142, 144, 221, 228 telic, 34, 155 Attraction, 3, 19, 118–120, 123, 127, 165, 212, 230 Attrition, 100–101, 123–124, 147, 211, 234 Auxiliary, 14, 38, 63, 67, 97–98, 102, 106, 109, 117–118, 126, 199, 214, 221–224 subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI), 12, 61–62 Awareness, of change, 22, 28, 57, 173, 221 social, 125 Backgrounding, 202, 210, 220 Binominal, 25–27, 49, 55, 58, 114, 209–214 see also a bit/bunch/deal/lot/heap/shred of in Index of key historical examples Bleaching, 33, 64, 90, 102, 105, 106, 147, 174, 193, 208, 212, 213 Blocking, 206 Bondedness, 101–102, 110, 129, 131, 133, 169 Case, 32, 40, 66, 69–70, 108, 129–132, 168, 171 genitive, 29, 209, 214, see also –s genitive in Index of key historical examples see also Argument structure Cataphora, 109, 143–145, 182 Categorization, 36, 50, 61 Category, 4, 6–7, 10, 12, 13, 35, 48, 57, 66, 73–74, 78, 114, 133, 151, 201, 205 as attractor, 118 grammatical, 101 margin of, 64, 205 strengthening of, 90

Index of Subjects Change, characterized, 2 Chunking, 100, 122–124, 147, 199, 237 Cleft, 102–103 see also Pseudo-cleft see also IT-cleft in Index of key historical examples Cline, 12, 90, 119, 162, 200 of grammaticalization, 38, 65, 97–100 Clitic, 38, 63, 97–98, 109, 122, 128–132, 190, 235 Coalescence, 34, 101, 109–110, 123, 158, 182, 238 rate of, 122 Coercion, 204–206 Cognition, 50 Cognitive linguistics, 1–8, 11, 39, 47, 50, 166 Coining, 78, 155, 165, 187 patterns of, 186 Common ground, 195, 227 Comparative reconstruction, 40–41 Competition among alternatives, 18, 65, 68, 89, 105, 175, 198, 230 see also Motivation, competing Compositionality, 5, 19–20, 22–24, 27, 34, 83, 112, 122, 160–161, 164, 166–169, 176, 177–182, 185, 187, 193, 205, 233 decrease in, 23, 49, 68, 90, 96, 113, 120–122, 123–124, 158, 164, 191 increase in, 96, 131 Compound, 22–23, 153–154, 156, 158–161, 162, 164–174, 179–181, 202, 207–209, 229, 235 see also Affixoid Condensation, 101, 109 Conditional construction, 19–20, 107 Constraints, 1, 2, 29, 37, 60, 61, 68, 72, 100, 102, 103–104, 109, 127, 135, 140, 146, 184, 203, 206–208, 229, 233 Construct, 2, 17 Construction, 13, 40, 151, 163 Construction, defined, 1, 11 type, 83, 113–114, 118, 136, 137, 147, 174, 186, 230 Construction grammars, 2–3 models of, 2–8 Constructional change (CC), characterized, 26

275

Constructionalization (Cxzn), characterized, 22 Contentful construction, 12–13, 22, 26 Context, defined, 195–198 bridge, 101 critical, 101, 199, 212, 215, 217, 219–220, 228–229, 230 isolating, 28, 199, 230 switch, 28, 199, 201, 230 Context-absorption, 56, 58, 228 Continua, 30, 73–74, 104, 149, 150, 156, 182, 186, 188, 211 see also Gradience Conventionalization, 2, 5, 8, 15–17, 20–21, 45–46, 52–53, 91, 104, 163 Conversion, 30, 34, 86, 161, 167, 187, 190, 231 Corpora, use of, 41–42 Data bases, use of, 43 Debonding, 129, 131–132 Decategorization, 116 Degrammaticalization, 103, 127–131, 147, 190–194, 232, 233 Degree modifier, 117, 236 Deinflectionalization, 128–132 Derivation, morphological, 30, 64, 128, 154–155, 161–162, 168–169, 172, 174–178, 190, 208, 229, 234, 237 Determiner, 103, 128, 130–131, 214–216 Diachronic construction grammar, 18, 30, 39–40, 198, 228 Directionality, of change, 54, 99–100, 107–112, 120, 124–127, 147–149, 163–164, 190, 233 Discourse argumentative, contesting 138, 145, 198, 225–227 context, 195, 220 function, 5–6, 8, 57 Discourse marker, see Pragmatic marker Domain-general processes, 3, 46, 51 Emergence, 47–48, 92, 105, 168, 186, 199, 202, 206, 227 Encyclopedic knowledge, 202, 224–225

276

Index of Subjects

Entrenchment, 5, 9, 55, 122–124, 238 Exemplar-based analogy, see Analogy, exemplar-based Expansion, 18, 27, 28, 32, 33, 65, 85–90, 96–97, 105–12, 123–126, 145–146, 147–148, 149, 163–165, 168, 172, 183, 192–193, 198, 203, 209, 211, 214–217, 220, 222, 230, 233, 235 host-class, 18, 83, 90, 107, 114, 115, 135, 144, 163, 172, 175, 191, 192, 208, 220, 222, 228, 230 semantic-pragmatic, 106, 107, 110, 112, 145–146, 211 syntactic, 103, 105–107, 111, 124, 135, 146, 193, 211, 222 Feature, 4, 7, 8, 10, 21, 36–37, 46, 53, 56–58, 61, 74–75, 91, 93, 101, 121, 123, 124, 148, 208 Fixation, 101, 123 Focus, 72–73, 95, 102–104, 137–139, 144–145 Foregrounding, 160, 202, 210, 216, 219, 220 Frequency, 5, 18, 33, 35, 48–49, 64–65, 67, 105, 110, 113–115, 119, 122, 127, 151–152, 173, 177, 206, 214, 238 token, 18, 124 type, 18, 113–114, 119–120, 152, 162, 169, 171, 173, 175–176, 181 Fusion, 28, 34, 97–98, 100, 109, 122, 161, 165, 177 Future, 1, 36–37, 66, 97–98, 102, 105, 122, 126, 132, 217 deictic, 217, 220, 221 relative, 217, 220, 222, 228 see also BE going to in Index of key historical examples Generalization, 48, 53, 64, 68, 72, 106, 118, 132, 146, 154, 155, 169, 172, 174, 183–184, 208, 223, 225 Genre, 64, 67, 68, 125, 211, 225, 230 Gradience, 11, 16, 20, 27, 56, 59, 74–75, 116, 122, 123, 151, 159, 163, 166–167, 170, 177, 178, 182, 199, 215, 232, 238 Gradient, contentful-procedural, 13, 44, 90, 150, 154, 155, 157, 239 Gradualness, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 44, 56, 64, 70, 74–76, 113, 116–117, 130, 132, 135, 161, 170,

172, 175, 177, 178, 182, 186, 189–190, 192, 199, 215, 223, 231, 232, 238 Grammar, characterized, 2, 3 Grammatical construction, see Procedural construction Grammaticalization, characterized, 32 Grounding, nominal, 130–131 Hapax legomena, 87, 152, 169, 176 Heterosemy, 60, 107, 201–202, 223 Homonymy, 199–201, 206 Host-class, see Expansion, host-class Idiom, 3, 21, 121, 151, 159, 163, 166, 182, 183, 239 Idiosyncrasy, 3, 11, 28, 34, 44, 46, 50, 68, 150, 151, 163, 165, 182, 188–189, 205 Impersonal, 40, 63, 69–71, 95, 160 Inflection, morphological, 17, 37–38, 49, 65–66, 97, 103, 128–131, 132, 153, 160, 161, 190, 209 Information structure, 8, 12, 13, 32–33, 73, 103, 136, 141, 145, 197 Inheritance, 2, 3, 7, 59, 61–62, 71–72, 153, 166, 187 default, 61, 152, 164, 185 multiple, 10, 61 Innovation, 2, 15, 17, 21, 46–48, 52, 53, 54, 57, 71, 90, 91, 100, 124, 141–142, 187–188, 203, 229, 232 Instantaneous change, 22, 26, 29–30, 75, 167, 175, 186–190, 192–194, 231 Integrity parameter, 101–102, 109, 110 Intensifier, 154, 215, 216–217 Invited inference, 26, 56, 57, 91, 199, 202 Invisible hand theory of change, 125, 202 Knowledge-system, 50 Lexicalization, overview of, 33–35, 156–160 Lexicon, 9 Loss-and-gain model, 105 Marginality, 50, 52, 60, 63–67, 71, 88–89, 120, 127, 147, 205, 207–208, 222–223

Index of Subjects Mechanism, 21–22, 35–38, 41, 58, 93, 99, 118, 126, 205, 232 Metaphor, 9, 60, 105–106, 163, 206, 224, 225 Metatextual marker, see Pragmatic marker Metonymy, 23, 105, 233 Micro-construction, characterized, 16–17 Micro-step, 22, 29, 36, 39, 58, 75, 91, 186, 238 Mismatch, 19, 45, 50, 52, 57, 58, 83, 91, 121, 124, 201, 205–206, 213, 222, 233 resolution of, 27, 53, 121, 123, 211, 214 Modals, 49, 63, 66, 72, 74, 98, 108, 158, 183, 199, 222, 224, 229 core, 67, 68, 114 semi-, 67, 114 Modularity, 11, 30, 54, 73, 101, 103, 148, 150, 151 Motivation, 35, 38, 57, 99, 124–127 competing, 42, 146 Neoanalysis, 21, 22, 25, 27, 35–38, 46, 49, 58, 71, 75, 79, 93, 99, 121, 122, 148, 166, 179, 190–191, 199, 201, 215, 217, 232, 237 Network, 1–3, 8–11, 14–15, 22, 38, 44, 45–46, 50–51, 53–57, 59–77, 84–92, 108, 120, 126–127, 139–140, 146–147, 148, 149, 151, 163–164, 172, 175, 188, 192, 195, 195, 197–198, 204, 205, 217, 222, 230, 231–233, 236, 239 links in, 3, 9–10, 44–46, 51, 57, 59–73, 139, 201, 228 node, 3, 9, 158 social, 52, 74 Noun, use of count as mass, 204–205, 212 Obsolescence, 50, 55, 66, 69, 74, 89, 92, 147, 155, 160, 169, 172, 176, 192, 230 Organization, cognitive, 47, 50 Paradigmatic variability, 102–103, 109, 134 Paradigmaticity, 5, 37, 40, 67, 98–99, 101–104, 109, 129, 132, 162, 197, 198 Paradigmatization, 101, 106, 123 Parameters, 75, 96, 101–103, 106, 109, 112, 128, 239

277

Particle, modal, 104 Partitive, 23 see also a bit/deal/lot/shred of in Index of key historical examples Periphrasis, 39, 65, 76, 100, 102, 114, 124, 126, 214, 222 Persistence, 19, 52, 66, 68, 70, 113, 130, 163, 192–193, 204, 227–230 Polarity, 77, 93, 126–127, 183 Polygrammaticalization, 108 Polysemy, 9, 15, 57, 59, 67, 72–73, 77, 92, 191, 199–202, 223, 224 see also Heterosemy Post-constructionalization, 27–28, 92, 95, 115, 124, 169, 172, 178, 181, 186, 193, 198, 203, 211, 230 Pragmatic marker, 71, 73, 74, 101, 103–104, 109–110, 112, 145, 160, 209 Pragmaticalization, 103 Pre-constructionalization, 27–29, 63, 84, 91, 95, 186, 198, 230 Prepositional ‘paraphrase’ of ditransitive, 62, 72 Priming, 54–55, 84, 134, 195 Procedural construction, characterized, 12, 13, 22 Processing, 16, 37, 51, 55, 71, 91, 122 Productivity, 17–19, 22, 26, 33, 67–68, 71, 85, 87, 90, 96, 112–114, 118–120, 123, 126, 130, 153, 155, 163–165, 172, 174–175, 181, 185–186, 191, 192–193, 198, 237, 238–239 Projector, 143–145, 182 Prosody, negative, 213 Prototype, 9, 65, 74, 83, 120, 133, 204, 205, 238 Pseudo-cleft, 136–137, 143–144 see also ALL-/TH-/WHAT-cleft in Index of key historical examples Punctuation, 41, 197 Purposive, 72, 102, 140, 146, 217, 219, 220, 228 Quantifier, 17, 25, 51, 58, 114 see also a bit/deal/lot/shred of in Index of key historical examples

278

Index of Subjects

Reanalysis, 21, 36–38, 75, 199 see also Neoanalysis Reduction, 27, 32–34, 41, 64, 67, 92, 96–97, 100–102, 108–109, 112–113, 114, 122, 124, 126, 129, 132, 134, 143–144, 146, 147–148, 151, 156, 159, 162, 163, 164, 170, 172, 177, 178, 181, 191, 192–193, 198, 208, 223, 230, 233, 237 Renewal, 65–66 Reorganization of construction-types, 72, 76, 87, 92, 172, 234 Resultative, 15, 60, 76–77, 89, 90 Rule/list fallacy, 48 Sanction, characterized, 15–17, 23, 44, 49–50 Schema, characterized, 12–13 subschema, 17 Schematicity, 12, 13–17, 22, 67, 90, 96, 112–120, 123, 130, 147–149, 164, 165–166, 181, 193, 200, 207, 237 Scope, change in, 101–103, 108–109, 111, 112, 235 Snowclone, 150, 183–186, 224–225 Specificational construction, see Cleft Specificity, 8, 11, 12, 14, 51, 103, 106, 113, 144, 146 Spreading activation, 54–58, 60, 197, 219, 121, 128, 151 Step, see Micro-step Storage, 5, 48, 49 Stress clash, 67 Subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI), see Auxiliary Substantive construction, 12–14, 17, 33, 94–95, 181, 198, 217, 224 Synonymy, 62, 72 Systemic changes, 29, 63, 70, 75, 129, 178, 197, 227, 230 Taxonomy, 3, 7, 13, 44, 59, 61 Tense, 12, 17–18, 95

future, see Future past, 17–18, 20, 48–49, 61, 63, 68, 78, 203 Token, see Frequency, token Transitivity schemas, 60–61, 69–70, 80, 84–85 see also Verb, intransitive, transitive see also Ditransitive in Index of key historical examples Transmission, 21, 74 Type, see also Frequency, type Unidirectionality, see Directionality Unit, 1, 3, 8, 11, 18, 22–23, 27, 34, 35, 40, 48–50, 57, 92, 100, 104, 126, 133, 157, 158, 168, 183, 195, 196, 197, 207, 237 Universal Grammar (UG), 24, 43 Universals, 2–7, 126, 109 Usage-based model, characterized, 3 Vagueness, 199–200 Verb acquisition, 78, 80–83, 186 cognitive, 228 deadjectival, 151 intransitive, 6, 74, 78–85, 87–89, 118, 142–143, 145, 155 motion, 6, 13, transitive, 77–85, 87–89, 95, 96, 118, 142, 152, 191, 197 see also BE going to in Index of key historical examples see also Ditransitive in Index of key historical examples Word-formation, 30, 34, 69, 87, 122, 150–152, 154, 156, 160–170, 172–175, 183, 186–189, 192–194, 197, 202, 207–208, 224, 231, 234, 236 Word Grammar, 3, 9, 59, 61 Word order, 29, 37, 63, 97, 99, 102–104, 121, 136, 156, 162, 183, 237

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge ADVISORY EDITORS

Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge In preparation for the series Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli Vowel Quantity from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden The History of Negation in Low German Anne Breitbarth Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun ôïò and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph

Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro The Syntax and Semantics of Vedic Particles John J. Lowe Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth