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. 43–61

An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization

On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change

| University of Amsterdam | ACLC
This paper assumes that in order to explain rather than describe language change, historical linguists should not only consider what happens diachronically at the language output level but also, crucially, what speaker-listeners do at the processing level. The reason for this is that the structure of the language is shaped by the properties of the neurolinguistic mechanism underlying both language use and language learning. It will be argued that analogy as an important principle in grammar formation is the main mechanism in grammaticalization and in change in general when looked at from a processing point of view. The paper discusses the workings of analogy in a number of cases in the history of English which have traditionally been interpreted as unidirectional cases of grammaticalization . It will be shown instead that multiple source constructions were involved, which influenced one another and thus gave direction to the change.
Keywords: analogy, epistemic modals, grammaticalization, language processing, pragmatic markers, processing errors, syntactic change, unidirectionality
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.03fis
References (49)
References
Aitchison, Joan. 2001. Language change. Progress or decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1998. Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33. 752–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borensztajn, Gideon, Willem Zuidema & Rens Bod. 2009. Children’s grammars grow more abstract with age — Evidence from an automatic procedure for identifying the productive units of language. Topics in Cognitive Science 1. 175–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88. 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & William Pagliuca. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation, 59–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, Don & Royal Skousen. 2005. Analogical modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9. 333–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coates, Richard. 1987. Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics 23.319–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. Cooper & Kathryn Bock. 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition 25. 57–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88. 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 450–461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1990. Syntactic change: Towards a theory of historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1989. The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 8. 143–217.Google Scholar
. 1996. The status of to in old English to-infinitives: A reply to Kageyama. Lingua 99. 107–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. The grammaticalisation of infinitival to in English compared with German and Dutch. In Raymond Hickey & Stanislaw Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, 265–280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Morphosyntactic change. Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Willem van der Wurff. 2000. The syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2007. Is analogy economic? In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Nabil Hathout (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, available online at [URL]Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive — a universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10. 287–310.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 255–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. From cognition to grammar — Evidence from African languages. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 149–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2005. Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa & Jussi Haukioja. 1997. A rehabilitation of analogy in syntax (and elsewhere). In András Kertész (ed.), Metalinguistik im Wandel. Die ‘kognitive Wende’ in Wissenschaftstheorie und Linguistik, 131–177. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Lingusitic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistioc theory, 170–202. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1974. Remarks on analogical change. In John M. Anderson & Charles Jones (eds.), Historical Linguistics, vol. I, 257–275. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa (first published in the series Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projektes 48, University of Cologne).Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1993. Etymology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticization of subjects. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Grammaticalization, vol. 1, 159–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2011. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 401–412. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2005. The productivity of a “source of information” construction: Or, where grammaticalization theory and construction grammar meet. Paper presented at the Fitigra Conference , Leuven, Belgium, February 2005.
Plank, Frans. 1985. Prädikativ und Koprädikativ. Zeitschrift für germanische Linguistik 13. 154–185.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1922 [1983]. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye, avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Paris: Payot [translation by Roy Harris. London: Duckworth].Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
. 1992. Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2. Theoretical issues, 1158–1256. Mahwah N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sprenger, Simone A., Willem J.M. Levelt & Gerard Kempen. 2006. Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A Usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL 12 , Manchester University. Available at [URL]
Wanner, Dieter. 2006. The power of analogy. An essay on historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Ben. 2008. Green behind the ears? Available online at [URL]
Cited by (2)

Cited by two 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
Molencki, Rafał
2021. The Grammaticalization of the Epistemic Adverb Perhaps in Late Middle and Early Modern English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 56:s1 ► pp. 411 ff. 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.