Constructional Changes - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Constructional Changesand Constructionalization

Elizabeth Closs Traugott traugott@stanford.eduin collaboration with Graeme TrousdaleUniversity of Santiago de Compostela, Oct. 16th 2012

1Slide2

Outline

Some key points about construction grammar.Diachronic construction grammar.A constructional account of change.Constructional changes.Constructionalization.Grammatical constructionalization.Lexical constructionalization.Intermediate constructionalization.The way-construction revisited.

Conclusions.

2Slide3

Construction grammar

• There are several versions of construction grammar (CxG). • All now conceive of it as a theory of grammar as a whole (Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006, Sag 2012), not only idioms and idiosyncracies, e.g. let alone, What’s this fly doing in my soup? (Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor 1988; partly also Goldberg 1995). 

3Slide4

Some General Assumptions

Tenets common to all approaches (Goldberg Forthc): The basic unit of grammar is the construction (Cxn): a conventional pairing of form and meaning e.g. ditransitive He gave her a book: [[SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] 

[X cause Y receive Z]].

- It is therefore a theory of symbolic structures.

- It is a non-modular theory—morphosyntax,

phonology, semantics, pragmatics, discourse

function all interact; they cannot be studied

separately.

4Slide5

2. Semantic structure is mapped directly on to surface syntactic structure, without derivations (e.g. Goldberg 2002,

Culicover & Jackendoff 2005).3. Cross-linguistic (and dialectal) variation can be accounted by a mix of: - “domain-general cognitive processes” (e.g. Bybee 2010, Goldberg Forthc), - variety-specific constructions (e.g. Croft 2001; also Haspelmath 2008).

5Slide6

Common to a subset of approaches:• Cxns (and therefore grammars) are language-specific,

not universal (Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006).• Language structure is shaped by language use (Barlow & Kemmer 2000, Bybee 2010).• Language, like other cognitive systems, is a network of nodes and links between nodes: [W]e can describe a language as a structured inventory of conventional linguistic units. This structure—the organization of units into

networks and assemblies—is intimately related

to language use, both shaping it and being

shaped by it. (Langacker 2008: 222; also Hudson

2007)

6Slide7

• Cxns have subcomponents. In some formal models these are features, cf. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Fried & Östman 2004), Sign Based Construction Grammar (Sag 2012).

In Radical CxG (Croft 2001) Cxns have six subcomponents: - form: syntax, morphology, phonology, - meaning: pragmatics, semantics, discourse functions.• My approach to CxG is a usage-based and most directly associated with Goldberg (2006) and Croft (2001) but I also draw opportunistically on insights from all models.7Slide8

Cxns can be atomic or complex and of any size from affix to abstract schemas with slots, e.g.:(2) Morpheme

un-, -dom, -s Word data, if Complex word overlook, drop-out

Idiom (partially filled)

pain in the X

Ditransitive SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2

(

She gave him a book

)

Passive SUBJ aux

VPpp

(

PP

by

)

(

The man was struck by lightning

)

Conditional If X (then) Y

(If you leave now you will get here on time)

8Slide9

• Distinguish degrees of abstraction:

- constructs: tokens (actual utterances, written sentences/clauses), - micro-Cxns: types: individual conventionalized Cxns (e.g. be going to, beside, a lot of, table), - (partial) schemas: types of conventionalized

abstract patterns with open slots (e.g. passive,

ditransitive).

• Schemas may have

subschemas

(e.g. for ditransitive:

cause-receive (

give

), cause-not-receive (

deny

), intend-receive (

bake

), etc.).

9Slide10

Cxns are on a gradient from grammatical/procedural to lexical/contentful:GCxns

are procedural and non-referential: they signal: - linguistic relations (e.g. case, aspect, relative tense), - perspectives (e.g. modality, metatextual markers), - deictic orientation (e.g. definiteness, tense, information-structure marking) (Diewald 2011). 10Slide11

Lexical constructions (LCxns

) are contentful and referential, e.g. talk, powerlifting, word-formations (Adj-ness, N-dom). “Intermediate” constructions

(

ICxns

) are partially contentful, partially grammatical, e.g. some adverbs (

tomorrow, frankly

),

way

-Cxn,

give X a V-

ing

(e.g.

give someone a talking to/roasting,

Trousdale 2008), and valency Cxns (e.g. ditransitive,

resultative

).

A terminological caution: Jackendoff (2002: 176) refers to the

way-Cxn, resultative, etc. as “a lexical item in its own right that undergoes free combination with verbs”. I agree that there is not a lexical rule creating new V-argument structure, but not that the Cxn is a “lexical item”.

11Slide12

A constructional account of change

Recently considerable interest in “diachronic construction grammar” (starting with Noël 2007, Bergs & Diewald 2008). The field addresses a range of theoretical topics from lexicalization (Lxn) (Lehmann 2002, Brinton & Traugott 2005), to grammaticalization (Gzn) (Lehmann 1995).In most cases a historical dimension has been added to a largely synchronic theory, or CxG has been seen as “a tool for diachronic analysis” (Fried 2009, title). 12Slide13

It’s time to take the potential of CxG and rethink/

resynthesize what we know about language change in terms of this model of grammar.Traugott & Trousdale (Forthc) seeks to develop a coherent and restrictive account from a usage-based CxG perspective of the development over time of Cxns on the gradient from grammatical to lexical.13Slide14

Some tenets for a constructional view of change:• The construct (token utterance) is the locus of change.

• The path of a change is (typically) from construct to micro-Cxn to schema.Any feature or subcomponent may be subject to change. Any subschema may be expanded or contracted.Relationships among (sub)schemas in the network may be reorganized.Changes are “incremental adjustments” (Hoffmann & Trousdale 2011: 13) to the “internal dimensions of a Cxn” (Gisborne 2011: 156) or of a (sub)schema.

14Slide15

A question:Are all incremental adjustments to a micro-Cxn of the same type?

A consensus is developing that the answer is No (papers at SLE 44, 2011 by Rostila, Smirnova, and Traugott). All proposed a distinction between: - constructional change (CC) - constructionalization (Cxzn) (but did not agree on the distinction between them!).15Slide16

Constructional changes

• Constructional changes (CCs): changes that affect subcomponents of a Cxn, e.g. - semantics (want ‘lack’ > ‘desire’), - syntax (main verb will > auxiliary will),

-

morphophonology

(auxiliary

will

>

‘

ll

).

• CCs may be form changes or meaning changes,

but not both.

• They are discrete micro-steps in development.

• They do not form new nodes in a network.

16Slide17

Constructionalization

• “Constructionalization” (Cxzn): a subset of CCs in which formnew-meaningnew (combinations) of signs are created. • New (combinations of) signs are created through a sequence of small-step neo-analyses of form or meaning (CCs).

• Accompanied by changes in degree of:

- schematicity (abstractness),

- productivity (type and token frequency),

- compositionality (transparency of link

between form and meaning).

17Slide18

New Cxns (output of Cxzn) form new nodes in a network.New Cxns (output of Cxzn) may be:

- atomic (will) or complex (X-dom, a lot of), - specific (will) or schematic (AUX; schemas often have open slots: X-dom),

- grammatical/procedural, lexical/

contenful

, or

intermediate.

18Slide19

CCs prior to Cxzn enable Cxzn, CCs post Cxzn may allow for increasingly frequent use, reduction of form, and a variety of changes:(3)

PreCxzn CCs  Cxzn  PostCxzn CCs

• Note these distinctions are linguists’ generalizations and categorizations based on textual data, not necessarily neuronal changes.

19Slide20

The Gradient Output of Cxzn

Grammatical constructionalization (GCxzn) is the development of (mostly) procedural formnew-meaningnew (combinations) of signs.Lexical constructionalization (LCxzn) is the development of (mostly) contentful formnew

-meaning

new

(combinations) of signs.

Intermediate constructionalization

(

ICxzn

) is the development of partially contentful and partially procedural

form

new

-meaning

new

(combinations) of signs.

What is important in identifying types of Cxzn is output, not input.

20Slide21

• Some CCs and Cxzns may be generalized and come to be

systemic, e.g.: The loss of inflectional case in English initially involved individual Cxns (e.g. the old dative affix was replaced in part by to,

genitive by

of

). But

collectively

the changes are systemic

,

contributing

to overall shifts toward a largely

more analytic

system

.

• Systemic changes are among the contexts in which particular changes occur (Fischer 2007).

21Slide22

Overview of GCxzn

Much prior work done in terms of morphosyntactic change and grammaticalization (Gzn).Two main views of Gzn:The tradition of “grammaticalization as increased reduction and dependency” (GIRD), e.g. Lehmann (1995), Haspelmath (2004). Typical exs.:a. Latin cantare habeo

'

sing:INF

have:1sg'

> French

chanterai

'sing:FUT:1sg’,

b

.

BE going to > BE gonna.

22Slide23

The tradition of “grammaticalization as extension” (GE), e.g. “The process by which grammar is created” (Croft 2006: 366).

Exs. are syntax-, discourse-related as well as morphosyntactic, e.g.:(5) say (imperative of main verb say) > ‘suppose, for example’ (Brinton 2008a). • Focus on: - expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic, collocational (“host-class”) range (Himmelmann

2004), e.g.:

(6)

motion

BE going to

with constraints on V

>

‘future’ with few constraints on V.

.

23Slide24

• GIRD and GE are not orthogonal (Traugott 2010),

but intertwined. • Expansion is the logical outcome of most of Lehmann’s (1995) reduction “parameters”.• GCxzn is typically correlated with (Trousdale 2010): - increase in schematicity (greater abstraction), - increase in productivity (in Cxn-(sub)types, and

in token frequency),

- decrease in compositionality (loss of transparency

in link between form and meaning).

24Slide25

• But Cxns and subschemas

may obsolesce, so productivity may be lost in later stages. • Therefore, although there is directionality, there is no uni-directionality.25Slide26

Overview of LCxzn

Much prior work done in lexicalization (Lxn).Typically thought of in terms of reduction (LIR) (Lehmann 2002, Brinton & Traugott 2005), e.g.: Lexicalization is a process by which complex word-formations and other syntagmatic constructions become syntactically and semantically fixed entries of the mental lexicon. (Blank 2001: 1603)(7) bullet-hole, button-hole, cupboard, gar ‘

spear’ +

leac

‘

leek’ >

garlic.

26Slide27

But this excludes the development of word-formation (W-F) patterns in the first place. The development of W-F patterns is LCxzn involving expansion (lexical/contentful to LE):

(8) dom ‘status’ (but not ‘doom’) > derivational affix.Expansion may be followed by reduction:(9) OE ræden ‘status’ > derivational affix. -ræden obsolesced during ME as productive affix; now found only in

kindred, hatred

.

27Slide28

LCxzn as development of schematic W-F is correlated with: - increase in schematicity

- increase in productivity - decrease in compositionality• LCxzn as development of specific micro-Cxns may however be correlated with: - decrease in schematicity - decrease in productivity - further decrease in compositionality• Note Trousdale’s (2010) hypothesis that LCxzn is correlated only with decrease no longer holds.

28Slide29

Overview of ICxzn

Most obvious cases of ICxzn involve argument structure.Trousdale (2008) discusses the development in the 18thC of e.g. give someone a talking to/roasting:(10) [[give X a Ving]



[cause X receive verbal/physical insult

repeatedly]]

• Intermediate because:

-

atelic, often iterative, complex predicate Cxn

(grammatical/procedural),

- non-compositional contentful meaning (usually

verbal insult) (lexical/contentful),

- ditransitive structure.

.

29Slide30

Now coexists with earlier largely telic complex predicates with light Vs (e.g.

give John a bath [contrast bathe John] Brinton 2008b). Ditransitives undergo ICxzn: - changes in subschemas (Colleman & De Clerck

2011 on English, Torrent 2011 on Brazilian

Portuguese),

- depending on language type, changes in

morphological case (

Bar

ð

dal

2008 on Icelandic).

30Slide31

The way-Cxn revisited

The way-Cxn underwent ICxzn; has been said to be: - primarily lexical (Broccias 2012), - primarily grammatical (Gisborne & Patten 2011, Mondorf 2011).

• Building on Israel (1996),

Mondorf

(2011), development toward the grammatical pole can be identified.

• Israel focuses on semantics (how motion, path, manner, and cause are combined), the sequential rise of patterns/”threads”, and the role of analogy.

•

Mondorf

focuses on relation to

resultatives

.

31Slide32

• Note the way

-Cxn is structurally a fake transitive; - most subschemas involve non-bounded Vs, - the newest manner/accompaniment subschema:(11) giggled her way to fame. (1997 Nash, Solid Goldie [COCA])

is typically iterative. Israel called it “accidental

accompaniment”.

• Jackendoff (1990: 213) suggests V in a PDE

way

-Cxn must designate a repeated action or unbounded activity, but iterative mainly true of this newest subschema.

32Slide33

Some contemporary exs. of the

way-Cxn:(12) a. Nix de la Fuente scowled at the editorial as she made her way from her car to the latest crime scene. (2012 Garner, Kiss of the Vampire [COCA])

Ignoring her thanks, he

went his way

.

(2006 Stroud,

The Golem’s Way

[COCA])

I don't have to

elbow my way

through crowds to chase the tournament leaders from hole to hole.

(2012 Hurt,

Green Party

[COCA])

d

. she

trash-talked

her way into a Strikeforce

title shot

.

(March 4

th

2012,

Vancouver Sun

[Google])

33Slide34

Precursors: some very early constructs with wei,

but not surface transitive (13a), not Poss (13b, c), or wei is plural (13b):(13) a. Moyses … ferde

forþ

on his

weiʒ

.

‘Moses went forth on his way’.

(

c

. 1175 H Rood

4/33 [MED

wei

n(1), 2b (a)])

b

.

And

went the wayes hym before. ‘and went the way in front of him’.

(a1400

Parl

3 Ages

37 [MED

wei

n(1), 2b (a)])

c

. and to him

þane

wei

he

nam

.

‘and to him the way he took’.

(

c

. 1200

Orm

3465 [MED

wei

n(1), 2b (

b

)])

34Slide35

MED (wei n(1), 2b) says “

wei and phrases such as on wei combine with almost any verb denoting locomotion, forward progress, or the like”. Citations appear with go, wend, fare, ride, flee/fly, ride, nim- ‘take’, take, drive forth.Preferred without directional (DIR) before 1500:

(14) Ah,

flih

,

flih

þinne

wæi

&

burh

þine

life!

‘Ah, flee, flee your way and save your life!’

(c.1275 Layamon,

Brut 8024 [MED wei n(1), 2b (

d

)])

35Slide36

These are not way-Cxns, but particular examples of

(15) [[SUBJanim Vimotion DIR]  [‘traverse a path’]] In (15) way

is a member of DIR (answers ‘Where did X go?).

(16) [[

SUBJ

anim

Vt

acquisition

OBJ]



[‘take a path’]]

In

(16)

way

is a member of OBJ (answers ‘What did X take (figuratively)?).

36Slide37

By early 17thC, Cxzn of two new Cxns:I) Intransitive/

unergative motion V without DIR, typical of religious texts:(17) Iesus saith vnto him, Go thy way, thy sonne

liueth

. And the man

beleeued

the word that

Iesus

had spoken

vnto

him, and he went his way

.

(1611 King James Bible,

New Testament

[HC centest2])

(It continues to be preferred without DIR, e.g. all 55

exs

. with

go in COCA have no DIR, see (12b)).II) Transitive acquisition V with DIR: (18) At last comes a notable

clowne

from

Greenham

,

taking his way

to Newbery.

(1619

Deloney

,

Jack of

Newbury

[HC cefict2b])

37Slide38

• With expansion of transitive acquisition schema to use with causative V, reorganization as a

superschema with two subschemas, one motion, the other causative.(19) [[NPi V POSSi way DIR]

[‘traverse (created) path by/while doing V’]]

[[

NP

i

V

POSS

i

way DIR] [[

NP

i

V

POSS

i

way DIR]]

[traverse path]] [‘create path]]

38Slide39

• The causative subschema itself has two sub-subschemas

: Vs involving obstruction (20a), Vs that do not (20b):(20) a. Afterwards about a dozen of them went into the Kitchin, forcing their way against all the Bolts and Locks. (1690 Trial of John Williams et al. [OBP t16900430-8])

b

. the Fire; which on the East side had from

Mascalucia

made its way

to St. Giovanni

di

Galermo

(1669

Winchilsea

,

Earthquake and Eruption

of Mt.

Ætna [Lampeter msca1669.sgm])

39Slide40

Networks

Throughout its history networked with expansion of Vs encoding manner, especially Vi linked to sound emission (chug, rumble, splash, slosh) (Fanego 2012). Because require DIR, linked primarily to “create a path” (Vt) subtype.Also networked and in competition with self-resultative (

Mondorf

2011).

By 20thC

self-

preferred with abstract,

way

with concrete

resultatives

(

Mondorf

2011: 418):

(21) a.

Worked himself

into a frenzy

and gave himself

indigestion.

[BNC wridom1] b. … he

worked his way

down the steep bank

toward the stream.

[FROWN]

40Slide41

By early 19thC, a new subschema is evidenced (CC), involving manner, but not motion Vs (e.g.

elbow, beg), and wide variety of Vs, e.g.: (22) a. and shot my way home the next day; having, previously to my setting out, equally divided the game between the three.

(1820-2 Hunt, Memoirs of Henry Hunt [CL 2])

b

. The steamer …

plashed its way

forward.

(1842 Borrow,

Bible in Spain

[CL 2])

• Members of this subschema have high type-frequency but low token frequency.

• Strongly associated with

iterativity

.

41Slide42

Over time there has been: - increase in schematicity,

- increase in productivity, - decrease in compositionality, - category strengthening, - shift toward procedural status (the newest subschema (iterative accompaniment of path- making) is the most distinctly procedural and abstract).42Slide43

Conclusions

The theoretical architecture of CxG demands thinking in terms of both form and meaning equally. The methodology of: - looking for both form and meaning changes, - distinguishing Cxzn from pre-Cxzn CCs and post-Cxzn CCs, suggests new ways of interpreting the data in a principled and consistent way.• Conceptualizing GCxzn as (mostly) procedural outputs suggests a wider range of data can be subsumed under GCxzn than has typically been the case under Gzn. 43Slide44

Conceptualizing LCxzn as (mostly) contentful outputs suggests a way of accounting for W-F that integrates it with other types of Cxzn, and allows a far wider range of data to be considered than has typically been the case under Lxn. Conceptualizing

ICxzn as involving both contentful and procedural elements allows a richer account of gradience than is sometimes envisaged (e.g. by Aarts 2007).A constructional approach allows a unified cross-domain approach to micro-changes.44Slide45

Thank you for your attention!

45Slide46

Data sourcesBNC

British National Corpus. 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English 1990-2010. 2008–. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.FROWN

The Freiburg-Brown Corpus

. Original release 1999 compiled by Christian Mair. Release 2007 compiled by Christian Mair and Geoffrey Leech.

http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/FROWN/

.

46Slide47

HC Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Compiled by

Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English);

Saara

Nevanlinna

, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena

Raumolin-Brunberg

(Early Modern English).

Department of English, University of Helsinki.

http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/index.html

MED

The Middle English Dictionary.

1956-2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/

.

OBP

Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online 1674-1913. http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/.

47Slide48

References

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage Based Models of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008.

Constructions and Language Change

. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin Haspelmath,

Ekkehard

König,

Wulf

Oesterreicher

& Wolfgang

Raible

(eds.),

Language Typology and Language Universals

.

Vol

II. 1596-1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008a. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP.

48Slide49

----. 2008b. ‘Where grammar and lexis meet’: Composite predicates in English. In Elena Seoane &

María José López-Couso, eds., in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization, 3-53. Amsterdam: Benjamins.---- & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.Broccias, Cristiano

. 2012. The syntax-lexicon continuum. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds.,

The Oxford Handbook of the History of English

, 735-747. New York: OUP.

Bybee, Joan L. 2010.

Language, Usage and Cognition

. Cambridge: CUP.

Croft, William.

2001.

Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective.

Oxford: OUP.

----. 2006. Typology. In Mark

Aronoff

& Janie Rees-Miller, eds.,

The Handbook of Linguistics,

337-368. Oxford: Blackwell.

49Slide50

Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck

. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183-209.Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. New York: OUP. Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog & Heine, eds., 450-461.Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64: 501-538.

Fanego, Teresa. 2012. Complex motion events in the history of English: On the emergence of the construction type

Sir

Ascelin

clanked into the hall

. Paper presented at SLE 45, Stockholm, August 29

th

.

Fischer, Olga. 2007.

Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives

. Oxford: OUP.

Fried,

Mirjam

. 2009. Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis.

Constructions and Frames

1: 262-291.

50Slide51

---- & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam

Fried & Jan-Ola Östman, eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 11-86. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2011. Constructions, Word Grammar, and grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 155-182Gisborne, Nikolas & Amanda Patten 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog & Heine, eds., 92-104. Goldberg, Adele A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

----. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations.

Cognitive Linguistics

13: 327-56.

----. 2006.

Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language

. Oxford: OUP.

51Slide52

----. Forthc. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar

. New York: OUP. Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon, eds., Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanation of syntactic universals. In Theresa Biberauer, ed., The Limits of Syntactic Variation

, 75-107. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Himmelmann,

Nikolaus

. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In

Walter Bisang,

Nikolaus

P. Himmelmann &

Björn

Wiemer, eds.,

What Makes Grammaticalization - A Look from its Fringes and its Components,

21-42.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2011. Variation, change, and constructions in English.

Cognitive Linguistics

22: 1-23.

Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: OUP.

52Slide53

Israel, Michael. 1996. The way

constructions grow. In Adele Goldberg, ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 217-230. Stanford: CSLI Publ. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.----. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. New York: OUP.Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction

. New York: OUP.

Lehmann, Christian. 1995.

Thoughts on Grammaticalization.

Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.

----. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer & Diewald, eds., 1-18.

Mondorf

, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English

resultative

constructions.

Language Variation and Change

22: 397-421.

Narrog,

Heiko

& Bernd Heine, eds. 2011.

The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization.

New York: OUP.

53Slide54

Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language

14: 177-202.Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag, eds., Sign-based Construction Grammar, 69-209. Stanford University: CSLI Publications. http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/publications.html.Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2011. The construction network hypothesis. In Letras

&

Letras

27:

Construções

Emergentes

:

Gramática

de

Construções

e

Gramaticalização

.

http://

www.letraseletras.ileel.ufu.br/viewissue.php?id=21Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik, eds.,

Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics,

269-283. London: Continuum Press.

54Slide55

---- & Graeme Trousdale. Forthc. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes

. Oxford: OUP.Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne, eds., Constructional Approaches to English Grammar, 33-67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.----. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Katerina Stathi,

Elke

Gehweiler

&

Ekkehard

König, eds.,

Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues,

51-72

.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Wischer,

Ilse

& Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002.

New Reflections on Grammaticalization

. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

55