Cover not available
Part of
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 19–42

Multiple inheritance and constructional change

 | University of Edinburgh
Language as a network of dependencies or constructions is a central feature of many cognitive theories of grammar. In this network, inheritance relationships are used to describe synchronic facts about a language whereby members of a less abstract set inherit properties from a more general set, and in the case of multiple inheritance, from more than one general set. This article explores some of the ways in which the language network may change over time, particularly the ways in which more than one constructional type may be considered to be the source of a change in the network.
Keywords: change, composite predicate, Construction Grammar, hybrid construction, network
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.02tro
References (34)
References
Akimoto, Minoji & Laurel Brinton. 1999. The origin of the composite predicate in old English. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 21–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Bas Aarts & Charles F. Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English, 203–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2008. Where lexis and grammar meet: Composite predicates in English. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso (eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Minoji Akimoto. 1999. Introduction. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 21. 183–209.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 273–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A corpus of late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29. 69–82.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2008. Dependencies are constructions: A case study in predicative complementation. In Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar, 219–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 19–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32. 5–24.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2007. Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2002 [1988]. Light verbs in English. Ms.
Kemmer, Suzanne & Michael Barlow. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 7–28. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. In Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza & Sandra Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction, 101–159. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 1998. Aspectual grammar and past-time reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Stefan T. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World Wide 30. 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, Gabrielle. 1991. The phrasal verb type ‘to have a look’ in Modern English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29. 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. A historical overview of composite predicate types. In Laurel Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 239–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate in English. In Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale
2022. On Multiple Paths and Change in the Language Network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Maekelberghe, Charlotte
2022. From noun to verb. In English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series, 221], ► pp. 136 ff. DOI logo
Voicu, Roxana
2019. La polarité de un tant soit peu. Journal of French Language Studies 29:03 ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
Combettes, Bernard, Mathilde Dargnat, F. Neveu, G. Bergounioux, M.-H. Côté, J.-M. Fournier, L. Hriba & S. Prévost
2016. Grammaire de constructions et diachronie : Intensivité et concession. SHS Web of Conferences 27 ► pp. 04001 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.