Cover not available
Part of
Grammaticalization – Theory and Data
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Ekkehard König
[Studies in Language Companion Series 162] 2014
► pp. 181–202

The different developments of progressive aspect markers be in the middle/midst of and be in the process of V-ing

mechanisms of change

In this case study, we reconstruct the grammaticalization paths of middle, midst and process, which led to a set of progressive aspect markers (PAMs) in Present-day English. The three PAMs developed from two different source structures, viz. complex prepositions in the middle/midst of + NP and complex appositive noun phrase the process of + NP. The main theoretical aim of the diachronic reconstruction is to identify and characterize the main mechanisms of change that affected the different structures with these nouns on their grammaticalization trajectories: (i) reanalysis in the sense of functional reparsing of an existing structure; (ii) analogization: the attraction of new functional properties to an existing structure; (iii) neo-analysis by analogy: the creation of a functional structure that is new in the item’s trajectory of change. We also discuss how these mechanisms of change interact with enabling factors such as metaphor and metonymy, collocational fixation, expansion and reclustering, and discursive functions.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.162.10rom
References (37)
References
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1-44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2007. The Synchronic Layering of Size noun and Type Noun Constructions in English. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Gerunds, participles and for…to-infinitives. PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601-633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Miriam. 2010. Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change. In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research [Typological Studies in Language 94], An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds), 191-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization. A Look from its Components and its Fringes, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelman & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions. A Corpus-based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics. Society, 139-157.Google Scholar
. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17-36.
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. Collostructions. Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koops, Chris. 2004. Emergent aspect constructions in Present-Day English. In Studies in Linguistic Motivation, Günter Radden & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds), 121-154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Roman Jacobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 348-373. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 57-139. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 1: Theoretical Prequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303-318.Google Scholar
Margerie, Hélène. 2012. The grammaticalization of NP ADJ ADJ/NP1 VB NP2 ADJ patterns. Paper presented at International Conference on Grammaticalization: Theory and Data. Rouen, 10-11 May.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2): 177-202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED. Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, I [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they intersect? In Gradualness, Gradience, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90], Elizabeth Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 19-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Gradualness in language change: A constructional perspective. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Mol (eds), 27-42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rompaey, Tinne. 2014. A comparison of progressive be V-ing with be in the middle, midst, process or act of V-ing: the interaction of lexical and grammatical progressive aspect. Transactions of the Philological Society . DOI logo
. Forthcoming. Discourse conditions in language change: From binominal to aspectualizer be in the middle or midst of V-ing . Language Sciences.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Van Rompaey, Tinne, Kristin Davidse & Peter Petré
2015. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 22:2 ► pp. 232 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.