Cover not available

In:Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 69–103

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

Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death

Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions

 | University of Vienna
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.02som
Abstract
This paper revisits POSS DEM constructions in Old English (OE) by analyzing 13 OE prose texts from the York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). It aims to explain the marginalization and ultimate demise of this constructional family by discussing how the emergence of a new node (“constructionalization”) but also the reorganization of node-external, vertical and horizontal links can lead to constructional competition and ultimately to the disappearance of (a) node(s) in the network. It will especially discuss frequency effects and cognitive factors like strong/weak entrenchment or analogical thinking as driving forces of network change, especially constructional loss. Additionally, this paper makes some suggestions on how constructions should be annotated and sketched in networks.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The phenomenon
    • 2.1Questioning the existence of co-occurrence patterns
    • 2.2Co-occurrence as a Latin calque
    • 2.3Additional characteristic features
  • 3.Empirical analysis
    • 3.1Analyzing the four constructional subtypes
      • 3.1.1[[DEMinfl]+[POSSinfl]+[ADJinfl]+[CNinfl]]NPdef construction
      • 3.1.2The [[DEMinfl]+[POSSinfl]+[CNinfl]]NPdef construction
      • 3.1.3The [[POSSinfl]+[DEMinfl]+[ADJinfl]+[CNinfl]]NPdef construction
      • 3.1.4[[POSSinfl]+[DEMinfl]+[CNinfl]]NPdef construction
    • 3.2Testing the variable ‘text type’ and ‘historical period’
  • 4.A constructional sketch
    • 4.1A constructional family: Nodes in the network
    • 4.2Constructional loss: Demise of the constructional family
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Manuscripts used
  • Statistics programs used
References (83)
References
Abney, S. P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Phd thesis, MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ackles, N. (1997). Historical Syntax of the English Articles in Relation to the Count/Non-count Distinction. Washington: University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, C. L. (2004). These our letters: The dem poss construction from Old to Early Modern English. In G. Bergh, J. Herriman, & M. Mobärg (Eds.), An International Master of Syntax and Semantics. Papers Presented to Aimo Seppänen on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday (pp. 11–19). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Possessives and determiners in Old English. In T. Nevalainen, J. Klemola & M. Laitenen (Eds.), Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces (pp. 149–170). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Genitive Case in Early English: Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds). (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. (1923). Deutsche Syntax. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2013). Cognitive Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
Börjars, K., Harries, P., & Vincent, N. (2016). Growing syntax: the development of a DP in North Germanic. Language, 92, 1–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have, DP or NP? Proceedings of NELS, 37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, T., & Kranich, S. (Eds.). (2015). What happens after grammaticalization? Secondary Grammaticalization and Other Later Stage Processes. Language Sciences, 47 (special edition). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization. The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph, & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 602–23). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, 1, 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christophersen, P. (1939). The Articles: A Study of their Theory and Use in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13, 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1998). Syntax. In S. Romaine (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language (Vol IV) (pp. 92–326). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Category change and gradience in the determiner system. In A. V. Kemenade, & B. Los (Eds.), The Handbook of the History of English (pp. 279–304). London: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). The course of actualization. Language, 88, 601–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Hilpert, M. (2016). Frequency Effects in Grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [URL] (accessed 06 April 2018).
Faarlund, J. T. (2004). The Syntax of Old Norse: With a Survey of the Inflectional Morphology and a Complete Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization. Current Views and Issues (pp. 181–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1981). On the development of the numeral “one” as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2(1), 35–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinrichs, H. (1954). Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heltveit, T. (1977). Aspects of the syntax of quantifiers in Old English. Linguistics, 31, 47–94.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
(2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In E. Coussé, J. Olofsson, & P. Andersson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, R. J. (2003). The Blickling Homilies. York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kranich, S., & Breban, T. (2018). Lost in change: causes and processes in the loss of grammatical constructions and categories. Workshop at DGfS 2018 (40th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society). Stuttgart 7–9 March.
Kytö, M., & Rissanen, M. (1993). “By and by enters [this] my artificiall foole… who, when Jack beheld, sodainely he flew at him”: Searching for syntactic constructions in the Helsinki Corpus. In M. Rissanen, M. Kytö, & M. Palander (Eds.), Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus (pp. 253–266). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1992). Phonology and morphology. In N. F. Blake (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language (pp. 23–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax Vol. 1–2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English Syntax. Part I. Helsinki: Société Neophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Osawa, F. (2000). The historical emergence of DP in English. English Linguistics, 17, 51–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The emergence of DP from a perspective of ontogeny and phylogeny: Correlation between DP, TP and aspect in Old English and first language acquisition. In E. Stark, E. Leiss, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints and Historical Emergence (pp. 311–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2014). Constructions and Environments: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ringe, D., & Taylor, A. (2014). The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritt, N., Smith, K., & Fehér, O. (2014). Eliminating unpredictable linguistic variation through interaction. 2014 Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1461–1466.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2012). Investigating article development in Old English: about categorization, gradualness and constructions. Folia Linguistica Historica, 33, 175–213.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar. (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Article Emergence in Old English. A Constructionalist Perspective. [TIEL series, Vol. 99]. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torrent, T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2010). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Syntax. In R. M. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 1. Old English. From the beginnings to 1066 (pp. 168–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008). Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the English impersonal construction. In S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Minkova (Eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change (pp. 301–326). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1997). The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In A. V. Kemenade, & N. Vincent (Eds.), Parameters and Morphosyntactic Change (pp. 179–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wood, J. L. (2007). Demonstratives and possessives: From Old English to present-day English. In E. Stark, E. Leiss, & W. Abraham (Eds.), Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints and Historical Emergence (pp. 339–361). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamamoto, K. (1989). The historical development of determiners: A parametric approach. English Linguistics, 6, 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manuscripts used
Bately, J. (1980). The Old English Orosius. [EETS, 6]. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clemoes, P. (1997). Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The First Series. [EETS, 17]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hecht, H. (1965 [1900–1907]). Bischof Wærferth von Worchester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. Bibliothek der Angelsächsischen Prosa, V. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberman, F. (2015 [1903–1916]). Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, T. (1959–1963 [1890–1898]). The Old English Version of “Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People”. [EETS, 95, 96, 110,111]. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morris, R. (1967 [1874–1880]). The Blickling Homilies. [EETS 58, 63, 73]. London: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plummer, C. (Ed.). (1965 [1892–1899]). Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, with Supplementary Extracts from the Others. A Revised Texts on the Basis of an Edition by John Earle (2 vols, Oxford 1892/9; rev. imp. by D. Whitelock,). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sedgefield, W. J. (1899). King Alfred’s Old English Version of Boethius. De Consolatione Philosphiae. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skeat, W. W. (1966 [1881–1900]). Aelfric’s Lives of Saints. [EETS 76, 82, 94,114]. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1883). King’s Alfred Orosius. [EETS, 79]. London: Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1958 [1871]). King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care. [EETS, 45,50]. London: London University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Statistics programs used
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lüdecke, D. (2017). _sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science_. R package version 2.3.1. [URL]> (accessed 06 April 2018).
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL] (accessed 06 April 2018).
Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Becker, Israela & Mira Ariel
2025. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word. Constructions and Frames 17:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Axel Bohmann
2025. ‘Not that Tight a Family’ – BIG MESS Constructions in Present Day American English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 73:3 ► pp. 287 ff. DOI logo
Alba-Salas, Josep
2024. Rising datives: tomar ‘take’ expressions with nouns of ‘emotion’ and constructional network reconfiguration in Spanish. Folia Linguistica 58:s45-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Raineri, Sophie
2024. Can context undo constructional meaning? A Construction Grammar study of French en situation de + NOUN. CogniTextes Volume 25 DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Perak, Benedikt & Tajana Ban Kirigin
2023. Construction Grammar Conceptual Network: Coordination-based graph method for semantic association analysis. Natural Language Engineering 29:3 ► pp. 584 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2022. Individual differences in the decline of the Deontic nci construction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Noël, Dirk
2023. Towards a radically usage-based account of constructional attrition. In Reconnecting Form and Meaning [Studies in Language Companion Series, 230], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems
2022. ‘Wonder’ Nouns and the Development of a Mirative Constructional Network: An Exercise in Semiotic Diachronic Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 263 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