Cover not available

In:Category Change from a Constructional Perspective
Edited by Kristel Van Goethem, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé and Gudrun Vanderbauwhede
[Constructional Approaches to Language 20] 2018
► pp. 291–308

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

Chapter 11
Change in category membership from the perspective of construction grammar

A commentary

Published online: 22 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.11tro
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Categories: Creation and change
    • 2.1The creation of a new category
    • 2.2Category restructuring
  • 3.Gradualness
  • 4.The constructional network
    • 4.1Links between constructions
    • 4.2Constructionalization, constructional changes and categories
  • 5.Concluding comments
  • References
References (22)
References
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds.). (2015). Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–273). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 183–209.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic variation in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), (2010). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers? Journal of the British Academy, 1, 151–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L., Heyvaert, L., & Maekelberghe, C. (2015). How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 583–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its components and its fringes (pp. 21–42). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1997). The rise of auxiliary do: Verb-non-raising or category strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95, 41–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2013). The limits of (construction) grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2014). On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented at Cogling Days , Universiteit Gent, 11–12 December 2014. [URL]
Petré, P. (2014). Constructions and environments: Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1996). Review of W. Pagliuca, (Ed.) Perspectives on Grammaticalization . Cognitive Linguistics, 7(3), 301–306.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verveckken, K. (2015). Binominal quantifiers in Spanish: Conceptually-driven analogy in diachrony and synchrony. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Abruñeiras, Paula
2020. Example Markers at the Intersection of Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. English Studies 101:5 ► pp. 616 ff. DOI logo
Smirnova, Elena & Lotte Sommerer
2020. Introduction. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue