Cover not available
Part of
Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change
Edited by Evie Coussé and Ferdinand von Mengden
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69] 2014
► pp. 117–146

The motivation for using English suspended dangling participles

A Usage-based development of (Inter)subjectivity

The English dangling participial construction has long been prescriptively discarded as anomalous despite the fact that it serves the useful function of expressing the speaker’s subjective construal. The construction further gives rise to some suspended participial uses with an intersubjective function. Using these observations as a starting point and taking the dangling participial construction as a case, this paper examines how the process of language change is enhanced by the surrounding context of usage, especially in processes such as entrenchment by frequency, pragmatic strengthening, and interaction between speaker and hearer in dialogic context.
Published online: 10 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.05hay
References (39)
References
Beeching, K., Degand, L., Detges, U., Traugott, E., & Waltereit, R. (2009). Summary of the Workshop on Meaning in Diachrony at the Conference on Meaning in Interaction, University of the West of England, Bristol, April.
Bybee, J.L., & Pagliuca, W. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba, & G. Bernini (eds.), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 109–122). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society , 23, 378–388.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., & Bybee, J.L. (2009). A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning , 59, 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Construction grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 463–507). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. (1991). A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English, Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Degand, L., & Fagard, B. (2011). Alors between discourse and grammar: the role of syntactic position. Functions of Language , 18 (1), 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analysing reanalysis. Lingua , 119, 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., & Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics , 17, 365–392.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayase, N. (2011). The cognitive motivation for the use of dangling participles in English. In G. Radden & K.-U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in grammar and the lexicon: cognitive, communicative, perceptual and socio-cultural factors (pp. 89–106). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E. Traugott, & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (Vol. 1, pp. 17–35). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1932). Essentials in English Grammar . London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. (1991). Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites , Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics , 1 (1), 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application , Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 24–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. (2006). Extreme subjectification: English tense and modals. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, N.O. & Suzuki, R. (eds.). (2007). Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8: Special issue on subjectivity, intersubjectivity and historical changes in Japanese . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2000). I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics , 32 , 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, S., & Waltereit, R. (2010). Presupposition accommodation and language change. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens, (eds.). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 66–75). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., & Hopper, P.J. (2001). Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J.L. Bybee & P.J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 27–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. (1988). Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Berkeley Literary Society , 14. 406–416.Google Scholar
. (2003a). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2003b). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. Joseph & L. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Hoboken: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Constructions , 5 (1), 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2007). Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition , Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1972). An Historical Syntax of the English Language , vol.II. Leiden: E.J Brill.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

GÜZEL, Hasan
2023. DİL İLİŞKİLERİNDE KULLANIM TEMELLİ YAKLAŞIM. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) :38/Özel Sayı ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 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.