In:Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 277–315
Paradigms lost – paradigms regained
Paradigms as hyper-constructions
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die
Abstract
Based on Diewald (2009, 2015a, 2017),
it is claimed that the notion of paradigm needs to be introduced
into constructional accounts, as otherwise the essence of
grammaticalization cannot be properly captured in construction
grammar. It is suggested to define grammatical paradigms as a new
node type, a “hyper-construction”, which represents the categorical,
non-gradient specifics of grammatical meaning. This line of
argumentation is supported by a discussion of changes in the German
and English modality, tense, determiner, and number paradigms.
Independent arguments for the psychological reality of paradigms
come from the study of implicational relations in inflectional
morphology and diachronic phenomena such as layering, suppletion, and
paradigm pressure.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Terminological clarifications
- 2.1Grammaticalization versus grammatical change
- 2.2Grammaticalization versus constructionalization and constructional change
- 2.3Paradigmatization as a crucial feature of grammaticalization
- 3.Gradience and categorical distinctions
- 4.Paradigms lost: The status of paradigms in constructional models
- 5.Paradigms regained: Integrating paradigmatic knowledge into the
constructicon
- 5.1Paradigm ≠ paradigmatic relation
- 5.2The syntagmatic extension of paradigms
- 5.3The paradigm as a holistic entity / a hyper-construction
- 6.Observations concerning the existence of paradigms in
language
- 6.1Implicational relations
- 6.2Layering and suppletion
- 6.3Paradigm pressure
- 7.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (61)
Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R. (2009). Parts
and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional
paradigms. In J. P. Blevins, & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy
in Grammar: Form and
Acquisition (pp. 54–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blevins, J. P. (2015). Inflectional
paradigms. In M. Baerman (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of
Inflection (pp. 87–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bisang, W. (2014). Overt
and hidden complexity – two types of complexity and their
implications. Poznań Studies
in Contemporary
Linguistics, 50, 127–143.
Boas, H. C. (2014). Zur
Architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten Grammatik des
Deutschen. In A. Lasch, & A. Ziem (Eds.), Grammatik
als Netzwerk von Konstruktionen. Sprachwissen im Fokus der
Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 37–63). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Booij, G. (2016). Construction
Morphology. In A. Hippisley, & G. Stump (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of
Morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Budts, S., & Petré, P. (2020, this
volume). Putting connections
centre stage in diachronic Construction
Grammar.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The
Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the
Languages of the
World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical
Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological
Per-spective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2013). Radical
Construction
Grammar. In G. Trousdale, & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The
Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 211–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1999). Die
Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und
Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
(2010). On
some problem areas in grammaticalization
theory. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization:
Current Views and
Issues (pp. 17–50). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2015a). Review
of: E. C. Traugott, & G. Trousdale. (2013).
Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford:
Oxford University
Press. Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur, 137, 108–121.
(2015b). Modal
particles in different communicative
types. Constructions and
Frames, 7, 218–257.
(2017). Auf-
und Abbau linguistischer Komplexität
Grammatikalisierungsprozessen. In M. Hennig (Ed.), Linguistische
Komplexität – ein
Phantom? (pp. 223–252). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D. [to appear] Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven usage-based approach. In M. Hilpert & B. Cappelle (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Constructional Approaches to Language).
Diewald, G., & Habermann, M. (2005). Die
Entwicklung von werden & Infinitiv als
Futurgrammem: Ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von
Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen
Faktoren. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans, & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung
im
Deutschen (pp. 229–250). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (2010). Evidentiality
in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in
Grammaticalization. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Diewald, G., & Wischer, I. (2013). Markers
of Futurity in Old High German and Old English: A
Comparative Corpus-Based
Study. In G. Diewald, L. Kahlas-Tarkka, & I. Wischer (Eds.), Comparative
Studies in Early Germanic Languages. With a Focus on Verbal
Categories (pp. 195–216). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Constructions
Grammar. A thumbnail
sketch. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Constructions
Grammar in a Cross-Language
Perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
(1998). The
functional approach to
grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The
New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional
Approaches to Language
Structure, Vol. 1 (pp. 41–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions:
A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
(2006). Constructions
at Work. The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harnisch, R. (2006). Dieser
freundlicher Streit mit Rivalem und andern welchen
Leuten. Über aktuelle
Ungewöhnlichkeiten und latente Möglichkeiten in der
Nominalphrase. ZGL, 34, 394–405.
Haspelmath, M. (2000). Periphrasis. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology:
A Handbook on Inflection and Word
Formation, Vol. 1 (Handbücher
zur Sprach- und
Kommunikationswissenschaft) (pp. 654–664). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heine, B. (2003). Grammaticalization. In B. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The
Handbook of Historical
Linguistics (pp. 575–601). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hilpert, M. (2013). Corpus-based
approaches to constructional
change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 458–475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hilpert, M. & Mair, C. (2015). Grammatical
change. In D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus
Linguistics (pp. 180–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization
and grammaticalization: Opposite or
orthogonal?. In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What
makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its
Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On
some principles of
grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches
to
Grammaticalization, Vol. 1 (pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2016). Morphological
schemas. Theoretical and psycholinguistic
issues. The Mental
Lexicon, 11, 467–493.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical
Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: the
What’s X Doing Y?
Construction. Language, 75, 1–33.
Kaznelson, S. D. (1974). Sprachtypologie
und Sprachdenken. Ins Deutsche
übertragen und herausgegeben von H.
Zikmund. München: Max Hueber.
Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization:
Synchronic Variation and Diachronic
Change. Lingua e
Stile, 20, 303–318.
(2015). Thoughts
on Grammaticalization. 3rd
ed. Classics in Linguistics
1. Language Science Press [First
edition 1982].
Leiss, E. (1992). Die
Verbalkategorien des Deutschen: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der
sprachlichen
Kategorisierung. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type
shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to
aspectual coercion. Cognitive
Linguistics, 15, 1–67.
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward
a construction-based theory of language function: The case
of nominal
extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247.
Noël, D. (2007). Diachronic
construction grammar and grammaticalization
theory. Functions of
Language, 14, 177–202.
Nübling, D. (2000). Prinzipien
der Irregularisierung: eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn
Verben in zehn germanischen
Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Radtke, P. (1998). Die
Kategorien des deutschen Verbs. Zur Semantik grammatischer
Kategorien. Tübingen: Narr.
Saussure, F. de. (1983/1916). Cours
de linguistique
générale. Paris: Payot. [Engl. (1983): Course
in General Linguistics. Translated
by Roy Harris. Duckworth, London: Open Court, La Salle, III].
Sommerer, L. (2018). Article
Emergence in Old English. A Constructionalist
Perspective. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Toward
a constructional framework for research on language
change. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 1, 3–21.
(2015). Towards
a coherent account of grammatical
constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic
Construction
Grammar (pp. 51–79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and Constructional
Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trousdale, G. (2014). On
the relationship between grammaticalization and
constructionalization. Folia
Linguistica, 48, 557–578.
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, Boston: De Gruyter.
Cited by (26)
Cited by 26 other publications
Gabriele, Diewald
Kligge, Hendrik A., Ewa Dąbrowska & Thorsten Piske
Lehmann, Claudia
Patrizzi, Laura
Alba-Salas, Josep
Bouso, Tamara, Marianne Hundt & Laetitia Van Driessche
Dietrich, Nadine
Hilpert, Martin
Setzke, Rafael Soto
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff.
Gildea, Spike & Jóhanna Barðdal
2023. From grammaticalization to Diachronic Construction Grammar. Studies in Language 47:4 ► pp. 743 ff.
Hagel, Anna
2023. One man’s [ɕœtː] is another man’s [kʰøð̞]. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 55 ff.
Hagel, Anna
2025. Schemas all the way down?. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 291 ff.
Kinn, Torodd
2023. The development of heterosemous inflection and derivation. Constructions and Frames 15:2 ► pp. 211 ff.
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
Zhan, Hongwei, Sihong Huang & Lei Sun
2023. Paradigms as second-order schemas in English noun-participle compounding. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 542 ff.
Audring, Jenny
Diewald, Gabriele & Dániel Czicza
2022. Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions. Constructions and Frames 14:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gaeta, Livio
2022. Dangerous liaisons. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 3 ff.
Diewald, Gabriele, Volodymyr Dekalo & Dániel Czicza
2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker
of deontic modality. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 81 ff.
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021. Modality in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff.
Diewald, Gabriele & Katja Politt
2020. Grammatical categories as paradigms in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 42 ff.
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.
