Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 14:2 (2024) ► pp.304–334

Construct types in language change

ORCID logo | University of Graz
This article combines ideas and concepts deriving from grammaticalization studies, cognitive linguistics and construction grammar. Specifically, it takes three important ideas developed within grammaticalization research, namely untypical context, bridging or critical context and isolating or switch context (Evans & Wilkins 2000, 2006; Heine 2002), and remodels them with the concepts construct and construction. This enables the definition of three salient construct types present in historical corpora that are placed in the continuum between individual variation and language change: extensional constructs, ambiguous constructs and adaptive constructs. Each construct type characterizes a specific phase in language change. The data presented as illustration of the construct types stem from historical and contemporary corpora of written French, Italian and Spanish.
Keywords: construct, construction, French, grammaticalization, Italian, Spanish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basic assumptions
  • 3.Extensional constructs
  • 4.Ambiguous constructs
  • 5.Adaptive constructs
  • 6.Accessibility and ‘novelty’ of constructions
  • 7.Meroconstruct and holoconstruct
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora and dictionaries
  • References
Published online: 25 April 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.22031.sch
References (102)
Corpora and dictionaries
BFM2019 = École normale supérieure de Lyon (ENS) (ed.). 2019. Base de français médiéval 2019. Lyon: École normale supérieure de Lyon (ENS). Online: [URL]
BIBIT = Quondam, Amedeo et al. (eds.). 2016–2023. Biblioteca italiana. Roma: Sapienza Università di Roma. Online: [URL]
CDH = Real Academia Española (ed.). 2013–2023. Corpus del Nuevo diccionario histórico del español. Madrid: Real Academia Española. Online: [URL]
Frantext = Laboratoire Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française (ATILF) (ed.). 1998–2023. Base textuelle Frantext. Nancy: Laboratoire Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française (ATILF). Online: [URL]
LIZ = Stoppelli, Pasquale & Eugenio Picchi (eds.). 2001. Letteratura italiana Zanichelli. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
TLFi = Laboratoire Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française (ATILF) (ed.). 2013–2023. Trésor de la langue française informatisé. Nancy: Laboratoire Analyse et traitement informatique de la langue française (ATILF). Online: [URL]
TLIO = Opera del vocabolario italiano (ed.). 2005–2023. Corpus del Tesoro della lingua italiana delle origini. Firenze: Opera del vocabolario italiano. Online: [URL]
References
Andersen, Henning. 2001. Actualization and the (Uni)directionality of Change. Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress ed. by Henning Andersen, 226–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2021. Individuality in Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Spike Gildea. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications. Diachronic Construction Grammar ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea, 2–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald. 2008. Introduction: Constructions and Language Change. Constructions and Language Change ed. by Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald, 1–21. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2008. Constructional Idioms as Products of Linguistic Change: The aan het + INFINITIVE Construction in Dutch. Constructions and Language Change ed. by Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald, 81–106. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersi, Nigel Vincent & George Walkden. 2015. On Constructing a Theory of Grammatical Change. Transactions of the Philological Society 1131.362–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buridant, Claude. 2019. Grammaire du français médiéval (XIe-XIVe siècles). Strasbourg: Éditions de linguistique et de philologie.Google 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
Chomsky, Noam & Horward Lasnik. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. 1. Halbband / Vol. 1 ed. by Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann, 506–569. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Combettes, Bernard. 2014. Réanalyse et changement linguistique. Langages 1961.53–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2017. Ambiguity and Vagueness in Historical Change. The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives ed. by Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger, 292–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing Reanalysis. Lingua 1191.1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Course of Actualization. Language 881.601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak, 296–322. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 103–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Context Types in Grammaticalization as Constructions. Constructions SV 1. Online: [URL]
. 2009. Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 371.445–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza. 2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an Auxiliary Marker of Deontic Modality: An Item-Driven Usage-Based Approach. Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar ed. by Martin Hilpert, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere, 81–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the Mind’s Ear: The Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages. Language 76:3.546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara. 2017. Quapropter, quaeso? ‘Why, for Pity’s Sake?’ Questions and the Pragmatic Functions of quaeso, obsecro, and amabo in Plautus. Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek ed. by Camille Denizot & Olga Spevak, 83–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone . Language 641.501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: The Emergence of the into-Causative. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar ed. by Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova, 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2008. Constructions and Constructs: Mapping a Shift between Predication and Attribution. Constructions and Language Change ed. by Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald, 47–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1971. On Invited Inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 21.561–566.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Piera Molinelli. 2014. Deverbal Pragmatic Markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. QUAESO and It. prego): The Cyclic Nature of Functional Developments. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages ed. by Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli, 61–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nicolas & Amanda Patten. 2011. Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization ed. by Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, 92–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts ed. by Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele 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
Gras Manzano, Pedro. 2010. Gramática de construcciones en interacción. Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.
Györi, Gábor. 1995. Historical Aspects of Categorization. Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics ed. by Eugene H. Casad, 175–206. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 2018a. Cyclic Phenomena in the Evolution of Pragmatic Markers: Examples from Romance. Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change ed. by Salvador Pons Bordería & Óscar Loureda Lamas, 51–77. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2018b. The Expression of Clause Negation: From Latin to Early French. Latin tardif, français ancien. Continuités et ruptures ed. by Anne Carlier & Céline Guillot-Barbance, 269–297. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Three Open Questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar ed. by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and Grammaticalization: Opposite or Orthogonal? What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components ed. by Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1961 [1943]. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. [Translation of Omkring sprogteoriens grundlæggelse. København: Munksgaard.]Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann B. & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, February 14–16, 1987: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip, 139–157. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. On some Principles of Grammaticization. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 1: Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hummel, Martin. 2018. Baseline Elaboration and Echo-Sounding at the Adjective Adverb Interface. Cognitive Linguistics 291.407–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The Way Constructions Grow. Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language ed. by Adele E. Goldberg, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. København: Høst og Søn.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Emanuel. 2018. A Radical Construction Grammar Approach to Construction Split in the Diachrony of Spatial Particles of Ancient Greek. Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar ed. by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson, 277–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? Construction. Language 75:1.1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by Charles N. Li, 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, Jean & Étienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legallois, Dominique. 2018. La notion de construction. Encyclopédie grammaticale du français. ed. by Denis Apothéloz, Marie-José Béguelin, Christophe Benzitoun, Alain Berrendonner, Gilles Corminboeuf, Jeanne-Marie Debaisieux, José Deulofeu, Peter Lauwers & Dominique Willems. Online: [URL]
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization: A Programmatic Sketch. Vol. 1. Köln: Universität Köln.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic Change and Heterosemy in Grammaticalization. Language 671: 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca. 2016. Grammatica delle costruzioni. Un’introduzione. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel. 2007. Investigating the Mechanisms of Pattern Replication in Language Convergence. Studies in Language 311.829–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia: rivista internazionale di sintesi scientifica 121.384–400.Google Scholar
Molinelli, Piera. 2019. Verb-Based Functional Markers in Latin: Morphosyntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics at a Crossroads. Rivista italiana di linguistica e di dialettologia 211.49–66.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage. Language 79:4.682–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 2011. Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization ed. by Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, 401–412. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic Construction Grammar and Grammaticalization Theory. Functions of Language 141.177–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1988. Homonymy, Polysemy and Heterosemy: The Types of Lexical Ambiguity in English. Symposium on Lexicography III: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Lexicography May 14–16, 1986 at the University of Copenhagen ed. by Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen & Arne Zettersten, 269–280. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2019. How Constructions are Born: The role of Patterns in the Constructionalization of be going to INF. Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept ed. by Beatrix Busse & Ruth Möhlig-Falke, 157–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1988 [1984]. Lateinische Syntax und Semantik. Tübingen: UTB Francke. [Translation of Latijnse Syntaxis en Semantiek. Amsterdam: Grüner.]Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele, Pierluigi Cuzzolin, Nicola Grandi & Maria Napoli. 2021. Orizzonti della linguistica. Grammatica, tipologia, mutamento. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Rheinfelder, Hans. 1952. Altfranzösische Grammatik. 1. Teil. Lautlehre. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
. 1967. Altfranzösische Grammatik. 2. Teil. Formenlehre. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Rosén, Hannah. 2010. Coherence, Sentence Modification, and Sentence-Part Modification: The Contribution of Particles. New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Volume 1. Syntax of the Sentence ed. by Philip Baldi & Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 317–441. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1995 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bailly et Albert Séchehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Édition critique préparée par Tullio De Mauro. Postface de Louis-Jean Calvet. Paris: Payot & Rivages.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does Frequency in Text Instantiate Entrenchment in the Cognitive System? Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches ed. by Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer, 101–133. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2018. Verbos cognitivos en el Corpus del Nuevo diccionario histórico (CDH). RILCE. Revista de filología hispánica 34:3.1081–1103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. J’imagine comme verbe et marqueur pragmatique : une analyse diachronique. 7e Congrès mondial de linguistique française, Université de Montpellier 3, France, 6–10 juillet 2020 ed. by Franck Neveu, Bernard Harmegnies, Linda Hriba, Sophie Prévost & Agnès Steuckardt. Online: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. Dal verbo immaginare al segnale discorsivo immagino. Estensione, rianalisi e adattamento. Storie e linguaggi 8:1.225–248.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan & Julie Glikman. 2015. Origin and Development of French Parenthetical Verbs. Parenthetical Verbs ed. by Stefan Schneider, Julie Glikman & Mathieu Avanzi, 163–188. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena. 2015. Constructionalization and Constructional Change: The Role of Context in the Development of Constructions. Diachronic Construction Grammar ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer. 2020. Introduction: The Nature of the Node and the Network: Open Questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar ed. by Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefenelli, Arnulf. 1996. Thesen zur Entstehung und Ausgliederung der romanischen Sprachen. Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Band II.1: Latein und Romanisch: historisch-vergleichende Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen ed. by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt, 73–90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and Actualization in Syntactic Change. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change ed. by Charles N. Li, 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in Grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns. Constructions and Language Change ed. by Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald, 23–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varvaro, Alberto. 2013. Latin and the Making of the Romance Languages. The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Volume 2: Contexts ed. by Martin Maiden, John Ch. Smith & Adam Ledgeway, 6–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2017. The Actuation Problem. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax ed. by Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts, 403–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change. Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium ed. by Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel, 95–195. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Walter Bisang. 2004. What Makes Grammaticalization? An Appraisal of its Components and its Fringes. What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components ed. by Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, 3–20. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar