Cover not available
Article published In:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 39–53

For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar

| The University of Hong Kong
This squib first sketches the state-of-the-art in diachronic construction grammar by tracing it back to two strands of research which it distinguishes as historical construction grammar and constructionist grammaticalization theory. It then differentiates between usage-based work in diachronic construction grammar that focuses on (frequency of) use and work that centres on knowledge. It is posited that, to arrive at truly (radically) usage-based models of change, one should separate individual knowledge, or internal systems/constructicons, from assumed-to-be-shared knowledge, or external systems/constructicons. Two us-age-based models of constructional change, “Traugott/Trousdale” and “Fischer”, are assessed against this criterion. While the former explicitly distinguishes between individual and “community” knowledge, it is judged to confuse these by assigning a central role to reanalysis/neoanalysis. The latter model revolves around the role of analogy and is less confined to a semasiological account of the linear developments dictated by an external outlook.
Published online: 10 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.03noe
References (76)
Andersen, Henning. 2001. “Actualization and the (Uni)directionality of Change.” In Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress, ed. by Henning Andersen, 225–248. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, Ad. 2014. “A Usage-based Approach to Borrowability.” In New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations, ed. by Eline Zenner, and Gitte Kristiansen, 19–39. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2015. “A Usage-based Approach to Code-switching: The Need for Reconciling Structure and Function.” In Code-switching between Structural and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Gerald Stell, and Kofi Yakpo, 19–38. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Backus, Ad, Seza Doğruöz, and Bernd Heine. 2011. “Salient Stages in Contact-induced Grammatical Change: Evidence from Synchronic vs. Diachronic Contact situations.” Language Sciences 33 (5): 738–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2007. “The Semantic and Lexical Range of the Ditransitive Construction in the History of (North) Germanic.” Functions of Language 14 (1): 9–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account.” Lingua 121 (1): 60–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Spike Gildea. 2015. “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea (eds). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2013. “Individual Differences and Usage-based Grammar.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer (eds). 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander, and Gabriele Diewald. 2008. “Introduction: Constructions and Language Change.” In Constructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs, and Gabriele Diewald, 1–21. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1998a “Grammaticalization and Language Contact, Constructions and Positions.” In The Limits of Grammaticalization, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, and Paul J. Hopper, 13–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. “Verb Serialization and Attractor Positions: Constructions and their Potential Impact on Language Change and Language Contact.” In Typology of Verbal Categories, ed. by Leonid Kulikov, and Heinz Vater, 254–271. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent, and George Walkden. 2015. “On Constructing a Theory of Grammatical Change.” Transactions of the Philological Society 113 (3): 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003a. “Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency.” In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003b. “Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Volume 21, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. “Ditransitive Verbs and the Ditransitive Construction: A Diachronic Perspective.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59 (4): 387–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck. 2011. “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Dirk Noël. 2012. “The Dutch Evidential NCI: A Case of Constructional Attrition.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Tracing the History of Deontic NCI Patterns in Dutch: A Case of Polysemy Copying.” In Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker, and Jukka Tuominen, 213–236. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2010. “The Origins of Grammaticalization in the Verbalization of Experience.” Linguistics 48 (1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. “Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language Attainment.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2 (3): 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, Oana. 2015. “Clitic Doubling and Differential Object Marking: A Study in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames 7 (1): 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1994. “Grammaticalization and Linguistic Theory.” In Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages, ed. by Jule Gomez de Garcia, and David S. Rood, 1–22. Boulder: University of Colorado.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. “Analysing Reanalysis.” Lingua 119 (11): 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “The Course of Actualization.” Language 88 (3): 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “How Gradual Change Progresses: The Interaction between Convention and Innovation.” Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “The Roots of Ruthless: Individual Variation as a Window on Mental Representation.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21 (2):250–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds). 2013. On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change. Special issue of Studies in Language (37, 3).Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2014. “Usage-based Linguistics.” Oxford Bibliographies. ([URL], last accessed on 26 February 2016). DOI logo
Doğruöz, Seza, and Ad Backus. 2009. “Innovative Constructions in Dutch Turkish: An Assessment of On-going Contact Induced Change.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12 (1): 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. “On Analogy as the Motivation for Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 32 (2): 336–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “An Analogical Approach to Grammaticalization.” In Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 181–218. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. “Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis.” Constructions and Frames 1 (2): 262–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Principles of Constructional Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1990. “Constructional Borrowing and the Process of Factorization.” Unpublished manuscript. ([URL], last accessed on 18 February 2016)
Harris, Roy. 2007. “Integrational Linguistics.” In Handbook of Pragmatics: 2007 Installment, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren, and Eline Versluys, 1–17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Heiko Narrog, and Haiping Long. 2016. “Constructional Change vs. Grammaticalization.” Studies in Language 40 (1): 137–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendery, Rachel. 2013. “Constructional Etymology: The Sources of Relative Clauses.” In Lexical and Structural Etymology: Beyond Word Histories, ed. by Robert Mailhammer, 84–119. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. “The way constructions grow.” In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, ed. by Adele E. Goldberg, 217–230. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Michael Barlow. 2000. “Introduction: A Usage-based Conception of Language.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, vii–xxviii. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. “Borrowed Rhetorical Constructions as Starting Points for Grammaticalization.” In Constructions and Language Change, ed. by Alexander Bergs, and Gabriele Diewald, 196–230. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. “Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory.” Functions of Language 14 (2): 177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “The Nominative and Infinitive in Late Modern English: A Diachronic Constructionist Approach.” Journal of English Linguistics 36 (4): 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Grammaticalization in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” In Anais do IV Seminário Internacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática e XVII Seminário Nacional do Grupo de Estudos Discurso & Gramática: Teoria da gramaticalização e gramática de construções, ed. by Maria Angélica Furtado da Cunha, Edvaldo Balduíno Bispo, and José Romerito Silva, 5–12. Natal, RN, Brazil: UFRN.Google Scholar
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 (2): 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Rui. 2013. “A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account of the Chinese Cause-Complement Pivotal Construction.” Language Sciences 401: 53–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “The Integration of Exemplars and Prior Knowledge in the Extension of Schematic Constructions: Evidence from Chinese Emerge-Hide Construction.” Language Sciences 561: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls, and Freek Van de Velde. 2015. “The Rise of the Verbal Weak Inflection in Germanic: An Agent-Based Model.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 51: 81–102.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. “A Blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model.” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 31: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Annette Mantlik. 2015, “Entrenchment in Historical Corpora? Reconstructing Dead Authors’ Minds from their Usage Profiles.” Anglia 133 (4): 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, Luc (ed.). 2012. Experiments in Cultural Language Evolution. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2015. “On the Relation between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 173–212. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. “Constructions in Grammaticalization.” In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. “‘All that he endeavoured to prove was …’: On the Emergence of Grammatical Constructions in Dialogic Contexts.” In Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution, ed. by Robin Cooper, and Ruth Kempson, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008b. “Grammatikalisierung, emergente Konstruktionen und der Begriff der “Neuheit”.” In Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch, and Kerstin Fischer, 5–32. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. 2015. “Toward a Coherent Account of Grammatical Constructionalization.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 51–79. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Contentful Constructionalization.” Journal of Historical Linguistics 4 (2): 256–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. “Words and Constructions in Grammaticalization: The End of the English Impersonal Construction.” In Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, ed. by Susan M. Fitzmaurice, and Donka Minkova, 301–326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. “Constructions in Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: Evidence from the History of a Composite Predicate in English.” In Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, ed. by Graeme Trousdale, and Nikolas Gisborne, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008c. “A Constructional Approach to Lexicalization Processes in the History of English: Evidence from Possessive Constructions.” Word Structure 11: 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Issues in Constructional Approaches to Grammaticalization in English.” In Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues, ed. by Ekaterini Stathi, Elke Gehweiler, and Ekkehard König, 51–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. “Grammaticalization, Constructions and the Grammaticalization of Constructions.” In Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems, and Tanja Mortelmans, 167–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Theory and Data in Diachronic Construction Grammar: The Case of the What With Construction.” Studies in Language 36 (3): 576–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Multiple Inheritance and Constructional Change.” Studies in Language 37 (3): 491–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2011. “Left-Peripheral Expansion of the English NP.” English Language and Linguistics 15 (2): 387–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Degeneracy: The Maintenance of Constructional Networks.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2016. The Evolution of Case Grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2000. “Interpreting Usage: Construing the History of Dutch Causal Verbs.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 261–286. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. “Grammaticalisation through Constructions: The Story of Causative Have in English.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21: 159–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Becker, Israela
2023. It’s all about the sentential construction. Studies in Language 47:2 ► pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2023. Chapter 12. On the role of verb-particle constructions in Old Spanish. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
2022. Analogical Interference in Constructionalization: The Emergence of the Hebrew Desiderative ba le-X Y. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Anthonissen, Lynn
2020. Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Olga
2018. Analogy. In New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 202], ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Olga
2020. What Role Do Iconicity and Analogy Play in Grammaticalization?. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo
Gregersen, Sune
2018. Some (critical) questions for diachronic construction grammar. Folia Linguistica 52:s39-s2 ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change?. In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo
Taverniers, Miriam
2018. Grammatical metaphor and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 25:1 ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2017. The development of non-deontic be bound to in a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar perspective. Lingua 199 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The author and the text in radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar, or why historical linguists have started analysing text again. Functions of Language 26:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2019. The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:1 ► pp. 22 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2022. Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2023. Chapter 5. Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2024. Culture in a radically usage-based model of language change, with special reference to constructional attrition. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 june 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.