Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 29, Issue 2

Issues

The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation

Hendrik De Smet / Frauke D’hoedt
  • Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Belgium and Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), Leuven, Belgium
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Lauren Fonteyn / Kristel Van Goethem
  • Comparative, Historical and Applied Linguistics, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve & Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (F.R.S.-FNRS), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025

Abstract

The relation between functionally similar forms is often described in terms of competition. This leads to the expectation that over time only one form can survive (substitution) or each form must find its unique niche in functional space (differentiation). However, competition cannot easily explain what causes functional overlap or how form-function mappings will be reorganized. It is argued here that the changes which competing forms undergo are steered by various analogical forces. As a result of analogy, competing forms often show attraction, becoming functionally more (instead of less) alike. Attraction can maintain and increase functional overlap in language. At the same time, competing forms are analogically anchored to a broader constructional network. Cases of differentiation typically follow from the relations in that network. Evidence is drawn from the literature and from three corpus-based case studies, addressing attraction and differentiation in English aspectual constructions, English secondary predicate constructions, and in a pair of Dutch degree modifiers. Evidence is provided of a phenomenon competition-based accounts could not predict (attraction), and a solution is offered for one they could not very well explain (differentiation). More generally it is shown that the development of competing forms must be understood against their broader grammatical context.

Keywords: analogy; competition; constructional networks; isomorphism; language change; variation

References

  • Aaron, Jessi E. 2016. The road already traveled: Constructional analogy in lexico-syntactic change. Studies in Language 40. 26–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Heike Behrens. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30(6). 995–1026.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Alba-Salas, Josep. 2007. On the life and death of a collocation: A corpus-based diachronic study of dar miedo/hacer miedo-type structures in Spanish. Diachronica 24(2). 207–252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anttila, Raymond. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Berg, Thomas. 2014. Competition as a unifying concept for the study of language. The Mental Lexicon 9(2). 338–370.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Breban, Tine. 2009. Structural persistence: A case based on the grammaticalization of English adjectives of difference. English Language and Linguistics 13. 77–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brinton, Laurel. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Buyle, Anouk & Hendrik De Smet. Submitted. Meaning in a changing paradigm: The semantics of you and the pragmatics of thou.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 235–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. The origins of complex language: An inquiry into the evolutionary beginnings of sentences, syllables, and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longmann.Google Scholar

  • Davies, Mark. 2011. N-grams and word frequency data from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Downloaded from http://www.ngrams.info.

  • Davies, Mark. 2012. Recent shifts with three nonfinite verbal complements in English: Data from the 100 million word TIME Corpus (1920s–2000s). In Bas Aarts, Jeanne Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora, 46–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics12. 55–102.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2010a. English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories. Linguistics 48. 1153–1193.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2010b. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and phrasal verb particle out. In Elizabeth Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradualness, gradience and grammaticalization, 75–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2014. Constrained confusion: The gerund/participle distinction in Late Modern English. In Marianne Hundt (ed.), Late Modern English syntax, 224–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28. 83–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik & Hubert Cuyckens. 2007. Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment and the matching-problem. In Christopher Cain & Geoffry Russom (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language III. Managing chaos: Strategies for identifying change in English (Topics in English Linguistics [TiEL] 53), 1–37. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • De Smet, Hendrik & Van de Velde Freek. 2013. Serving two masters: Form-function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37. 534–565.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vogelaer, Gunther & Coussé. Evie. 2011. The functional nature of pronominal change: Innovative plural pronouns in English and Dutch. Neophilologus 95. 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Declerck, Renaat. 1991. A comprehensive descriptive grammar of English. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

  • Degand, Liesbeth & Benjamin Fagard. 2012. Competing connectives in the causal domain: French car and parce que. Journal of Pragmatics 44(2). 154–168.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • D'hoedt, Frauke. 2017. Language change in constructional networks: The development of the english secondary predicate construction. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Dik, Simon C. 1988. Isomorfisme als functioneel verklaringsprincipe [Isomorphism as a functional explanatory principle]. GLOT 11. 87–106.Google Scholar

  • Duffley, Patrick J. 1999. The use of the infinitive and the -ing after verbs denoting the beginning, middle and end of an event. Folia Linguistica 33. 295–331.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet & Wim van der Wurff. 2017. A brief history of English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Foolen, Ad. 2012. The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Ad Foolen, Ulrike M. Lüdtke, Timothy P. Racine & Jordan Zlatev (eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others. Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language, 347–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1995. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in language, 47–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2009. The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences 31. 663–723.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56. 515–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18. 180–205.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John. 2001. Why are categories adjacent?. Journal of Linguistics 37. 1–34.Google Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hoeksema, Jack. 2005. Rijkdom en weelde van het Nederlands [Wealth and riches of the Dutch language]. Tabu 34. 1–12.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jacobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbum. In Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio quinquagenario a discipulis et Circuli Linguistici Pragensis soladibus oblata, 74–84. Prague: Cercle Linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1940. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 5: Syntax. London: George Allan & Undwin.Google Scholar

  • Kauhanen, Henri. 2017. Neutral change. Journal of Linguistics 53. 327–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keller, Rudi. 1990. Sprachwandel von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar

  • Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1. 199–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lehmann, Christian. 2002 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization (2nd, rev. edn.). Erfurt: Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt.Google Scholar

  • MacWhinney, Brian. 2014. Conclusions: Competition across time. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 364–386. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mair, Christian. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6. 105–131.Google Scholar

  • Mair, Christian. 2003. Gerundial complements after begin and start: Grammatical and sociolinguistic factors, and how they work against each other. In Günther Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 329–345. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Markman, Ellen M. & Gwyn F. Wachtel. 1988. Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology 20. 121–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mondorf, Britta. 2010. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22(3). 397–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg & Heikki Mannila. 2011. The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation and Change 23. 1–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nuyts, Jan & Pieter Byloo. 2015. Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32(1). 34–68.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Petré, Peter. 2012. General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics 23. 27–65.Google Scholar

  • Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van De Velde 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?. Folia Linguistica 50. 543–581.Google Scholar

  • Pilley, John W. & Alliston K. Reed. 2011. Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behavioural Processes 86. 184–195.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poplack, Shana. 2015. Pursuing symmetry by eradicating variability. Keynote lecture presented at New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV) 44, University of Toronto, 22–25 October.Google Scholar

  • Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Reinöhl, Uta & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2017. Renewal: A figure of speech or a process sui generis?. Language 93(2). 381–413.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rohdenburg, Günther. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76. 367–388.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rohdenburg, Günther. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 149–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosenbach, Anette. 2007. Emerging variation: Determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11. 143–189.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916/1995. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Payot & Rivages.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Piotr Bański, Hanno Biber, Evelyn Breiteneder, Marc Kupietz, Harald Lüngen & Andreas Witt (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-3), 28–34. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), 486–493. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2012. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James A. Walker. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2). 321–354.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 141–179. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Van de Velde, Freek. 2015. Schijnbare syntactische feniksen [Apparent syntactic phoenixes]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20. 69–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch Syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers.Google Scholar

  • Van Goethem, Kristel, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede & Hendrik De Smet. 2018. The emergence of a new adverbial downtoner: Constructional change and constructionalization of Dutch [ver van X] and [verre van X] ‘far from X’. In Muriel Norde, Kristel Van Goethem, Gudrun Vanderbauwhede & Evie Coussé (eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (Constructional Approaches to Language 20), 179–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Vartiainen, Turo. 2016. A constructionist approach to category change: Constraining factors in the adjectivization of participles. Journal of English Linguistics 44. 34–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30. 382–419.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-03-15

Accepted: 2017-11-20

Revised: 2017-06-08

Published Online: 2018-05-05

Published in Print: 2018-05-25


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 197–234, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Vittorio Tantucci and Matteo Di Cristofaro
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2019, Volume 0, Number 0
[2]
Caroline Gentens and Juhani Rudanko
Folia Linguistica, 2019, Volume 53, Number 1, Page 51
[4]
Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem, and Hendrik De Smet
Constructions and Frames, 2018, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 123
[5]
Dirk Pijpops, Isabeau De Smet, and Freek Van de Velde
Constructions and Frames, 2018, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 269
[6]
Lauren Fonteyn and Charlotte Maekelberghe
Diachronica, 2018, Volume 35, Number 4, Page 487

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in