Cover not available
Part of
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 137–168

Reduction or expansion? A bit of both

A case study on the development of German degree modifiers

This paper presents a diachronic analysis of the German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions ein bisschen (‘a bitDIM’) and ein wenig (‘a little’). On the basis of data from two historical corpora, we examine to what extent these constructions followed a grammaticalization path comparable to the one Traugott (e.g. 2008a) observed for their English counterparts. Quantitative analyses on their gradual context expansion are combined with qualitative analyses on potential bridging contexts for reanalysis. Their combined histories suggest that the older German modifiers may have served as attractor sets for an increasingly strengthened mid-level quantifier/degree-modifier schema, promoting the emergence of younger modifiers. These observations stress the crucial role that network links between constructions can play in grammaticalization.
Keywords: degree modifiers, analogy, paradigmatization, low-frequency grammaticalization, German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Reduction and expansion in a construction grammar framework for grammaticalization
  • 3.English quantifier/degree-modifier constructions
  • 4.German quantifier/degree-modifier constructions: An overview
  • 5.Studying the German degree modifiers: Corpus data and methods
  • 6.Quantitative corpus analyses
    • 6.1Token frequency
    • 6.2Parts of speech modified by the constructions
    • 6.3 Determiner variation
  • 7.Bridging contexts and motivations for innovation
  • 8.Layering, attractor sets and constructional levels
  • 9.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora and sources
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c6
References (74)
Corpora and sources
DeReKo German Reference Corpus (Deutsches Referenzkorpus), available via COSMAS II, [URL]
DTA German Text Archive (Deutsches Textarchiv), [URL]
DWDS Digital Dictionary of the German Language (Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache), [URL]
Internet Archive [URL]
MED Middle English Dictionary, University of Michigan, [URL]
MHDBDB Middle High German Conceptual Database (Mittelhochdeutsche Begriffsdatenbank), [URL].
PCEEC Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, compiled by T. Nevalainen, H. Raumolin-Brunberg, J. Keränen, M. Nevala, A. Nurmi, & M. Palander-Collin (2006), distributed through the Oxford Text ArchiveGoogle Scholar
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2007). The grammaticalization of small size nouns: Reconsidering frequency and analogy. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(4), 293–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The establishment of quantifier constructions for size nouns: A diachronic case study of heap(s) and lot(s) . Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 202–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2003a). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 2. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003b). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
(2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B., & Brems, L. (2016). Size nouns matter: a closer look at mass(es) of and extended uses of SNs. Language Sciences, 53, 160–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B., & Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delorge, M., Plevoets, K., & Colleman, T. (2014). Competing “transfer” constructions in Dutch. The case of ont-verbs. In D. Glynn, & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Does innovation need reanalysis? In E. Coussé, & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 23–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency effects in grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durrell, M., Ensslin, A., & Bennett, P. (2007). The GerManC Project. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 31, 71–80.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2010). An iconic analogical approach to grammaticalization. In J. Conradie, R. Johl, M. Beukes, O. Fischer, & C. Ljungberg (Eds.), Signergy (pp. 279–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S., Pleyer, M., Winters, J., & Zlatev, J. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Interaction and iconicity in the evolution of language. Special issue of Interaction Studies .
Haspelmath, M. (1998). Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language, 22(2), 315–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Gries, S. T. (2009). Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language Acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 24(4), 385–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? (pp. 21–42). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. (2004). Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition. In H. Lindquist, & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 171–210). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 1 (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kluge, F. (2012). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache: Bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold. 25th edition. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 7–67). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Grammaticalization and automation. Paper presented at the 23rd LIPP-Symposium: Grammatikalisierung in interdisziplinärer Perspektive, Munich, Germany. [URL]
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (Eds.). (2003). Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, W. (1993). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (2011). Grammaticalization and linguistic variation. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 209–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preziosi, M. A., & Coane, J. H. (2017). Remembering that big things sound big: Sound symbolism and associative memory. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(10). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0047-y.
Sweetser, E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp. 389–405). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Tabor, W., & Traugott, E. C. (1998). Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In A. G. Ramat, & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), The limits of grammaticalization (pp. 227–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiefenbach, H. (1987). -chen und ‑lein. Überlegungen zu Problemen des sprachgeographischen Befundes und seiner sprachhistorischen Deutung. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 54(1), 2–27.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp. 406–416). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckhart, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development (pp. 219–250). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008b). The Grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns. In A. Bergs, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 23–45). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010). Grammaticalization. In S. Luraghi, & V. Bubenik (Eds.), Continuum companion to historical linguistics (pp. 269–283). London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
(2014). Towards a constructional framework for studying language change. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 1(1), 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularities in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M. (2013). Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 36, 32–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verveckken, K. D. (2012). Towards a constructional account of high and low frequency binominal quantifiers in Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 421–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Binominal quantifiers in Spanish: conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Lorenz, David
2023. Could Be it’s Grammaticalization: Usage Patterns of the Epistemic Phrases (it) Could/Might Be. Journal of English Linguistics 51:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Kuo, Yueh Hsin
2021. Morphosyntactic vagueness and directionality. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia
2020. Mortal hurryandmortal fine: on the rise of intensifyingmortal. Studia Neophilologica 92:3 ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.