Introduction published In: Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 1–12
Introduction
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 9 August 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00062.int
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00062.int
Abstract
Construction grammar – most notably Cognitive Construction Grammar ( (2006). Constructions
at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft, W. (2001). Radical
construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. ) and Cognitive Grammar
( (2008). Cognitive
grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. ) – has been extremely inspiring in providing tools for modelling
gradience in variation and change. Verbal constructions have been investigated within the paradigm of construction grammar from a
number of angles including idiomaticization processes as well as argument structure constructions (Boas, H. (2003). A
constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.; Engelberg, S. (2009). Blätter
knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei
Geräuschverben. In E. Winkler (Ed.), Konstruktionelle
Varianz bei
Verben (pp. 75–97). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.; Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb
valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Mouton de Gruyter. ; Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A
construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.; Rostila, J. (2007). Konstruktionsansätze
zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere University Press.). Usage-based approaches (Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.) (2000). Usage-based
models of language. CSLI Publications.; Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J. (Eds.) (2001). Frequency
and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. ; Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based
construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Mouton de Gruyter. , (2019). The
grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. ; Langacker, R. W. (1988). A
usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics
in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. ; Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing
a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.) have pointed out that usage is the place to look for variation and change. Data-driven,
corpus-based approaches have introduced quantitative methods for analyzing constructional functionality and variety synchronically
(Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions:
Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. ; Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and
cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora
in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and
lexis (pp. 57–99). Mouton de Gruyter. ; Glynn, D. (2014). The
many uses of run. Corpus methods and socio-cognitive
semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus
methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and
synonymy (pp. 117–144). John Benjamins. ) and diachronically (Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive
collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 2(2), 243–256. ). These techniques have given rise to detailed studies of verbal constructions, lexicalization and
idiomaticization.
This volume presents papers which in their majority have arisen in connection with the workshop “Variation and
Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions”, held at the 51st SLE Annual Meeting at Tallinn, 29th August – 1st September 2018. Its
focus is on verbal constructions in Germanic languages, constructional variation and degrees of polyfunctionality between lexical,
idiomatic and grammaticalized usages. The major object of this volume is to investigate the conditions and interdependencies of
such variations and polyfunctionalities. The theoretical and conceptual foundations of the studies united here rest upon
grammaticalization theory, usage-based constructional approaches, and frame semantics, allway in combination with empirical testing. The
scope of interest comprises synchronic as well as diachronic phenomena in various registers and communicative types.
Article outline
- 1.General background
- 2.Verbal constructions
- 3.The contributions
References
References (44)
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. J. (Eds.) (2001). Frequency
and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The
evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical
construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
Davies, M. (2010). The
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. [URL]
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based
construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2019). The
grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
Diewald, G. (1999). Die
Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Mouton de Gruyter.
(2002). A
model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New
reflections on
grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). John Benjamins.
(2008). The
catalytic function of constructional restrictions in
grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven [ et al.] (Eds.), Studies
on
Grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2020). Paradigms
lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes
and networks in Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins.
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D. (2021). Grammaticalization
of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven, usage-based
approach. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality
and Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 81–122). John Benjamins.
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L. & Falster Jakobsen, L. (Eds.) (1996). Content,
expression and structure. Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. John Benjamins.
Engberg-Pedersen, E., Fortescue, M., Harder, P., Heltoft, L., Herslund, M. & Falster Jakobsen, L. (2005). Dansk
Funktionel Lingvistik. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School & Roskilde University.
Engelberg, S. (2009). Blätter
knistern über den Beton. Zwischenbericht aus einer korpuslinguistischen Studie zur Bewegungsinterpretation bei
Geräuschverben. In E. Winkler (Ed.), Konstruktionelle
Varianz bei
Verben (pp. 75–97). Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Verb
valency patterns. A challenge for semantics-based accounts. Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D. (2014). The
many uses of run. Corpus methods and socio-cognitive
semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus
methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and
synonymy (pp. 117–144). John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A
construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.
Gries, S. Th. (2006). Corpus-based methods and
cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora
in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and
lexis (pp. 57–99). Mouton de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive
collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory, 2(2), 243–256.
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization
and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What
makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its
components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul J. (1991). On some principles of
grammaticalization. In E. Closs Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches
to
grammaticalization, Vol. 11 (pp. 17–35). John Benjamins.
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Second
edition. Cambridge University Press.
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation.
An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1988). A
usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics
in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins.
(2000). A
dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based
models of
language (pp. 1–60). CSLI Publications.
Lehmann, Ch. (1988). Towards
a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause
combining in grammar and
discourse (pp. 181–225). John Benjamins.
(2002). New
reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New
reflections on
grammaticalization (pp. 1–18). John Benjamins.
(2004). Theory
and method in grammaticalization. Zeitschrift für germanistische
Linguistik, 321, 152–187.
Lehmann, Ch., Lima, J. Pinto de & Soares, R. (2010). Periphrastic
voice with ‘see’ in Portuguese. In G. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Paradigmaticity
and
obligatoriness (pp. 75–100). Routledge (Acta
Linguistica Hafniensia, special issue, 42/1).
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic
change and heterosemy in
grammaticalization. Language, 671, 475–546.
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. & McEnery, T. (2017). The
Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International
Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344.
Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L. & Schøsler, L. (2011). Connecting
grammaticalisation. The role of paradigmatic
structure. John Benjamins.
Rostila, J. (2007). Konstruktionsansätze
zur Argumentmarkierung im Deutschen. Tampere University Press.
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions:
Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing
a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Zúñiga, F. (2011). Why
should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? Affaction and grammatical
relations. In S. Kittilä et al. (Eds.), Case,
animacy and semantic
roles (pp. 329–348). John Benjamins.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
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.
