Cover not available

In:On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 63–94

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Serving two masters

Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams

 | University of Leuven
 | Research Foundation — Flanders
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.04des
This paper examines two cases of so-called syntactic amalgams. In syntactic amalgams a particular string that is shared by two constructions is exploited to combine them, in such a way that one of the constructions functions as a modifier of the other. Typical examples are after God knows how many years (< after many years + God knows how many years) and a big enough house (< a big house + big enough). In formal theories, these kinds of constructions have been insightfully described as ‘grafts’. However, the exact process through which these amalgams arise remains unexplored. When studied closely, these processes reveal form–function friction not fully accounted for by the graft metaphor.
Syntactic amalgams typically serve a subjective function and have been recruited for this purpose. However, because they consist of a syntagm that is still internally parsable, they tend to resist full reanalysis. More precisely, their original syntax continues to constrain their use. As such, amalgams get caught between their original syntax, which remains transparent, and their new function, which suggests a new syntactic status.
This appears clearly from contrastive studies of amalgams in Dutch and English that are functionally similar but whose use is constrained in different ways due to structural differences between the two languages. Our first case study deals with the Dutch and English amalgam wie weet / who knows. A contrastive analysis of the development of the respective items shows both the conservative effect of the origin of change and the attraction exerted by the target of change. The second case we discuss in detail involves so-called transparent free relatives. A contrastive analysis shows the role of the overall grammar of a language in licensing change, in this case with Dutch word order posing more difficulties to the new focusing function of transparent free relatives.
In general, both case studies show the formation of syntactic amalgams to be sensitive to system pressures both in the course of their development and in the eventual outcome of change.
References (39)
References
Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The syntax of interpretation. Den Haag: HIL Dissertations.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte. 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14(1). 83–109. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(3). 601–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. From ancient Germanic to modern Germanic languages. In artin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, Vol. 2, 1706–1719. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Etsuyo Yausa. 2008. A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization. Journal of Linguistics 44(1). 45–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Kristin Davidse. 2011. The development of intensification scales in nounintensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics 15(2). 251–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ghesquière, Lobke & Freek Van de Velde. 2011. A corpus-based view on Bolinger’s shift from identification to intensification: English such and Dutch zulk . Cognitive Linguistics 22(4). 765–797. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Horst, Johannes M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houle, Leah & Rebeca Martínez Gómez. 2011. A closer look at quizá(s): Grammaticalization and an epistemic adverb. In Luis A. Ortiz-López (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 296–304. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2009. Understanding English-German contrasts, 2nd edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kruyt, Johanna G. & Tilly Dutilh. 1997. A 38 million words Dutch text corpus and its users. Lexikos 7. 229–244.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1988 [1974]. Syntactic amalgams. In Eric Schiller, Barbara Need, Douglas Varley & William H. Eilfort (eds.), The best of CLS: A selection of out-of-print papers from 1968 to 1975, 25–45. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English, 2 vols. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John & Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Rodney Huddleston & George Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 423–523. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & David Crystal. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2001. A far from simple matter: Syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 21–41. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Pieter-Arno Coppen & Nelleke Oostdijk. 2004. Transparent free relatives. In Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente & Mark de Vos (eds.), Proceedings of CONSOLE XII, available at [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2006. The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 335–359. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008a. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 21–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14(3). 399–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De nominale constituent: Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 15(2). 387–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2003. Three-dimensional grammar. In Leonie Cornips & Paula Fikkert (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2003, 201–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Transparent free relatives. In N. Shahin Kimary, Susan Blake & Kim Eun-Sook (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 685–699. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker, et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschenSprache, 3 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2006. Over het enten van interpolaties. Tabu 35(3–4). 163–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue