Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 9:1 (2017) ► pp.41–69

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

From manipulation to social interaction

Change in the use of lay in initiating bets

Published online: 20 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.9.1.02pon
Abstract
This paper is about constructional change that is brought about through change in non-linguistic practice. The English construction of interest is one that speakers use to initiate bets with their addressees. Its verb is lay, its subject is the speaker, and its direct object is the stake the speaker proposes to risk. It is argued that the motivation for the use of lay comes partly from the practice of laying down stakes when making bets. However, it is shown that over the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries this practice declines, weakening the basis for a physical interpretation and leading hearers to attend instead to the speaker-addressee relation. Concurrently, this relation is increasingly expressed through the use of a dative argument. This development is discussed in relation to Ariel, M., Dattner, E., Du Bois, J. W., & Linzen, T. (2015). Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language, 39(2), 257–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar account of added datives.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Betting
  • 3.The lay staking construction
  • 4.Motivations for the use of lay
    • 4.1Concrete motivation
    • 4.2Abstract motivation
  • 5.Change affecting the speaker-addressee relation
    • 5.1Data
    • 5.2Decline in the laying down of stakes
    • 5.3Increase in argument expression of the addressee
    • 5.4Change in meaning and the prominence of relations between participants
    • 5.5Added datives
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (25)
References
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, M., Dattner, E., Du Bois, J. W., & Linzen, T. (2015). Pronominal datives: The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language, 39(2), 257–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, R. (1940). From hostage to contract. Illinois Law Review, 35(3), 281–292.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosworth, J. (Ed. Northcote Toller, T.) (1898). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Pagliuca, W. (1985). Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics, historical word formation (pp. 59–83). Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2009). The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2003). Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Volume 21 (pp. 47–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J. M. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 8: Grammatical relations (pp. 59–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fotion, N. (1981). I’ll bet you $10 that betting is not a speech act. In H. Parret, M. Sbisà, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Proceedings of the conference on pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979 (pp. 211–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1975). Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Word order and word order change (pp. 47–112). Austin: University of Texas Press.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
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look at its fringes and its components (pp. 19–40). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Létoublon, F. (1991). Promisi per iocum. In R. Coleman (Ed.), New studies in Latin linguistics: Selected papers from the 4th International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Cambridge, April 1987 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stern, G. (1968 [1931]). Meaning and change of meaning. With special reference to the English language. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toller, T. N. (1921). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1991). English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation (pp. 387–406). 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
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford: Oxford 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