Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic StudiesVol. 1:1 (2014) ► pp.3–21
Toward a constructional framework for research on language change
A construction grammar approach is presented to changes to language as a system that is both communicative and cognitive (Traugott and Trousdale 2013). Constructionalization is defined as the development of formnew-meaningnew pairs and constructional changes as changes to features of constructions. The approach requires focus on form and meaning equally. Constructionalization is shown to encompass and go beyond both grammaticalization and lexicalization, which are conceptualized as on a continuum. The framework favors thinking in terms of analogizing to sets and schemas as well as of gradual (micro-step) reanalyses. The ability to see how networks, schemas, and micro-constructions are created or grow and decline, as well as the ability to track the development of patterns at both substantive and schematic levels, allows the researcher to see how each micro-construction has its own history within the constraints of larger patterns, most immediately schemas, but also related network nodes.
References (63)
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 
. (2013). Construction-based historical-comparative reconstruction. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 438–457). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barðdal, J., Gildea, S., Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (Eds.). (Forthcoming). Historical construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boas, H.C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 233–252).New York: Oxford University Press.
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2008). Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brinton, L.J., & Traugott, E.C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J.L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 221, 381–410.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2006). Typology. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. 337–368). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (1996). The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Defour, T., D’Hondt, U., Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., & Willems, D. (Forthcoming). In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Helsinki: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen.
De Smet, H. (2012). The course of actualization. Language, 881, 601–633.
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, SV1-9. [URL].
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2011). Grammaticalization as analogically driven change? In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 31–42). New York: Oxford University Press.
Francis, E.J., & Michaelis, L.A. (Eds.). (2003). Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In E.J. Francis & L.A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 1–27). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fried, M. (2009). Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garrett, A. (2012). The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 52–72). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giacalone Ramat, A., Mauri, C., & Molinelli, P. (Eds.). 2010. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in; language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, (pp. 15–31). New York: Oxford University Press.
Haselow, A. (2011). Typological changes in the Lexicon: Analytic tendencies in english noun formation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – The nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Himmelmann, N.P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N.P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization - A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hinterhölzl, R., & Petrova, S. (Eds.). (2009). Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation in germanic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hock, H.H., & Joseph, B.D. (2009). Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd Edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI.
Lehmann, C. (1995). Thoughts on grammaticalization, 2nd Edition. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.
. (2004). Theory and method in grammaticalization [Special Issue]. In G. Diewald (Ed.), Zeitschrift für germanistische linguistik, 32, (pp. 152–187).
. (2008). Information structure and grammaticalization. In E. Seoane & M.J. López-Couso (Eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 207–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lightfoot, D. (2011). Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 438–449). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lipka, L. (2002). English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics & word-formation, 3rd Edition. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Mair, C. (2004). Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 121–150). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Meillet, A. 1958. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (Ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.
Nordlinger, R., & Traugott, E.C. (1999). Scope and the development of epistemic modality. English Language and Linguistics, 11, 295–317.
Núñez-Pertejo, P. (1999).
Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica, 711, 135–142.
O’Connor, E. (2007). The snowclones data base. [URL].
Patten, A.L. (2012). The English IT-cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Pullum, G. (2003). Phrases for lazy writers in kit form. Language Log, October 27.
. (2004). Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. Language Log, January 16.
Rissanen, M. (2004). Grammaticalisation from side to side: On the development of beside (s)
. In H. Lindquist & C. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 151–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sweetser, E.E. (1988). Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley linguistics society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization, 389–405. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Traugott, E.C. (1995). The role of discourse ‘markers’ in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester University.
. (2012). The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
. (Forthcoming). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, S. Gildea, E. Smirnova & L. Sommerer (Eds.).
Traugott, E.C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, E.C. , & Trousdale, G. (Forthcoming). Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics.
Trips, C. (2009). Lexical semantics and diachronic morphology: The development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the history of english. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Trousdale, G. (2008a). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2008b). A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 11, 156–177.
. (2008c). Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. Fitzmaurice & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (pp. 301–326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trousdale, G., & Norde, M. (2013). Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences, 361, 32–46.
Vandewinkel, S., & Davidse, K. (2008). The interlocking paths of development of emphasizer adjective pure
. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 91, 255–287.
Visser, F.T. (1969). An historical syntax of the English language, Volume 21. Leiden: Brill.
Zhan, F. (2012). The structure and function of the Chinese copular construction. PhD dissertation. Stanford University.
Zwicky, A. (2006). Snowclone mountain? Language Log. March 13. [URL]
Cited by (25)
Cited by 25 other publications
Espinal, M. Teresa, Cristina Real-Puigdollers & Xavier Villalba
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
2023. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. 
Skrzypek, Dominika
2023. Variation and change in the Swedish periphrastic passive: a constructional approach. Folia Linguistica 0:0
Vinogradova, Ekaterina & Xueqing Chen
2023. CONSTRUCTIONS ‘PO + BODY PART NOUN’: THE
CROSSROADS OF GRAMMAR, PHRASEOLOGY AND
LEXICOLOGY. Lomonosov Journal of Philology :№5, 2023 ► pp. 9 ff.
Castro-Chao, Noelia
2022. The Emergence and Loss of the English Minor Complementizerstillanduntil. Journal of English Linguistics 50:4 ► pp. 354 ff.
Yang, Kun & Qingshun He
2022. The development of VdeO clefts in Chinese: A diachronic constructionist approach. Lingua 270 ► pp. 103214 ff.
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 81 ff.
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Kolbe-Hanna, Daniela & Natalia Filatkina
2021. Chapter 12. The diachronic origin of English I mean and German ich meine. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 327 ff.
Diewald, Gabriele
2020. Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 278 ff.
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th. Gries
2020. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:1 ► pp. 145 ff.
Luraghi, Silvia
Luraghi, Silvia, Chiara Naccarato & Erica Pinelli
2020. The u+gen construction in Modern Standard Russian. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 149 ff.
Lepic, Ryan
2019. A usage-based alternative to “lexicalization” in sign language linguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1
Green, Kieran & John W. Schwieter
2018. Using more native-like language acquisition processes in the foreign language classroom. Cogent Education 5:1 ► pp. 1429134 ff.
Lesuisse, Mégane & Maarten Lemmens
2018. Grammaticalisation cut short. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 43 ff.
Neels, Jakob & Stefan Hartmann
2018. Reduction or expansion? A bit of both. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 21], ► pp. 137 ff.
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.
Yang, Xu & Jin Liu
2017. Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale. Constructionalization and constructional changes
. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4:1 ► pp. 159 ff.
Fong, Ronald
Halevy, Rivka
2016. The ‘swift of foot’ construction and the phrase structure of the adjectival construct in Hebrew. Studies in Language 40:2 ► pp. 380 ff.
Higashiizumi, Yuko
2016. The development of confirmation/agreement markers away from the RP in Japanese. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17:2 ► pp. 282 ff.
Xu, Yang
2015. A Constructionalization Approach to Chinese Shang (上) and Xia (下) Spatial Metaphor. Chinese Studies 04:03 ► pp. 83 ff.
Wen, Xu, Kun Yang & Fangtao Kuang
Zhang, Heyou
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 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.