Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 317–340

Atomizing linguistic change

A radical view

This paper discusses the pragmatic processes of semiosis involved in real speaker-hearer interaction in the process of an initial innovative form-function construal. This atomistic view of the locus of linguistic change suggests that more prominence needs to be given to motivations which are present at the point of origin. Discussing two unrelated instances from the history of English, the paper argues that the initial motivation can become non-transparent in later stages of the process. Hypotheses based on structural comparisons may therefore be quite different from hypotheses of motivations effective at the point of origin.

Keywords: Atomistic, Micro-history of change, Inter-subjectivity, Morphosyntactic change, Onset context, Coercion, Real-time pragmatics, Construction grammar, Emergent, Invisible hand, Comprehensible input, Semiosis, Do-support, Extravagant progressive
Article outline
  • 1.Levels of explanation
  • 2.A gap in explanation
  • 3.Origin of variants
  • 4.The pragmatics of innovation
  • 5.Semantic consequences
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.15ste
References
Bach, K. & R. M. Harnish
(1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, C.-J.
(1980) Old and new views on language history and language. In H. Lüdtke (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 182–252). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergs, A.
(2006) Language change and the role of the individual in historical social network analysis. Logos and Language. Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory. VI.2. 30–54.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicourel, A.
(1981) Notes on the integration of micro- and macro-levels of analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina, & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 51–80). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E.
(1958 / 1974) Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. München: Fink. (First published as Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.)Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2000) Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman/Pearson.Google Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik , 37 (pp. 445–468). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorgeloh, H. & A. Wanner
forthcoming) Discourse Syntax: English grammar beyond the sentence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drinka, B.
(2017) Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegard, A.
(1953) The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
(2014)  Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission (Conceptual Foundations of Language Science 1). Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gal, S.
(1979) Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. San Francisco: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1989) Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology 18, 345–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1985) Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R.
(Ed.) (2002) The language myth in Western culture. Richmond, UK: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
(2005) Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. & García-Vidal, T.
(2018) Style-shifting and accommodative competence in late Middle English written correspondence: Putting audience design to the test of time. Folia Linguistica Historica 39: 383–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C.
(1965) Sound change. Language, 41(2), 185–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1987) Emergent grammar. In J. Aske, N. Berry, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip, eds., Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In: E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.). Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. (pp. 17-37.) Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(1997) Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 73–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S.
(Eds.) (2017) The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, R.
(1994) On language change: The invisible hand in language. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1997) In what sense can explanations of language change be functional? In J. Gvozdanovic (Ed.), Language change and functional explanation (pp. 9–20). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P.
(2012) Grammaticalization as optimization. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett, Grammatical change. Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 15–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S.
(2019) World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd extensively revised and updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdtke, H.
(Ed.) (1980a) Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1980b) Sprachwandel als universales Phänomen. In H. Lüdtke, (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1980c) Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels. In H. Lüdtke, (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 182–254). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S.
(2010) Causes of language change. In S. Luraghi, & V. Bubenik (Eds.), The continuum companion to historical linguistics (pp. 354–366). London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, W.
(1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Milroy, J.
(1992) Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1999) Toward a speaker-based account of language change. In E. Jahr (Ed.), Language change: Advances in historical sociolinguistics (pp. 21–36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L.
(1985) Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S.
(2001) The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J.
(1981) The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Maseck, R. A. Hendrick, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior (pp. 178–203). Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Petré, P.
2017 The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics 21: 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization,” Language 94: 4, 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stein, D.
(1985) Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. Koopman, F. van der Leek, (Eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, 10–13 April, 1985 (pp.283–302). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) The semantics of syntactic change: Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Toolan, M.
(2002) The language myth and the law. In R. Harris (Ed.), The language myth in Western culture (pp. 159–182). Richmond: Curzon.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(1982) From propositional to textual and expressive meaning; Some semanticpragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. & Heine, B.
(Eds.) (1991) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. . DOI logo
Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M.
(1968) In: W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.). Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U.
(1984) Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fedriani, Chiara & Maria Napoli
2023. The Missing Dative Alternation in Romance: Explaining Stability and Change in the Argument Structure of Latin Ditransitives. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 april 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.