In:Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 317–340
Atomizing linguistic change
A radical view
Published online: 9 July 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.15ste
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.15ste
Abstract
This paper discusses the pragmatic processes of semiosis involved in real speaker-hearer interaction in the
process of an initial innovative form-function construal. This atomistic view of the locus of linguistic change suggests that more
prominence needs to be given to motivations which are present at the point of origin. Discussing two unrelated instances from the
history of English, the paper argues that the initial motivation can become non-transparent in later stages of the process. Hypotheses
based on structural comparisons may therefore be quite different from hypotheses of motivations effective at the point of origin.
Article outline
- 1.Levels of explanation
- 2.A gap in explanation
- 3.Origin of variants
- 4.The pragmatics of innovation
- 5.Semantic consequences
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (53)
Bailey, C.-J. (1980). Old and new views on language history and language. In H. Lüdtke (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 182–252). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
Bergs, A. (2006) Language change and the role of the individual in historical social network analysis. Logos and Language. Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory. VI.2. 30–54.
Cicourel, A. (1981). Notes on the integration of micro- and macro-levels of analysis. In K. Knorr-Cetina, & A. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 51–80). Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Coseriu, E. (1958 / 1974). Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte. München: Fink. (First published as Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.)
Diewald, G. (2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik
, 37 (pp. 445–468).
Dorgeloh, H. & A. Wanner (forthcoming) Discourse Syntax: English grammar beyond the sentence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drinka, B. (2017). Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellegard, A. (1953) The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Enfield, N. J. (2014)
Natural causes of language: Frames, biases, and cultural transmission
(Conceptual Foundations of Language Science 1). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Gal, S. (1979) Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. San Francisco: Academic Press.
Gries, S. (2012) Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary
clarifications. Studies in Language. 36.3, 477–510.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hernández-Campoy, J. & García-Vidal, T. (2018). Style-shifting and accommodative competence in late Middle English written correspondence: Putting audience design to
the test of time. Folia Linguistica Historica 39: 383–420.
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. In J. Aske, N. Berry, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip, eds., Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, 139–157. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In: E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.). Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. (pp. 17-37.) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hundt, M., Mollin, S., & Pfenninger, S. (Eds.). (2017). The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1997). In what sense can explanations of language change be functional? In J. Gvozdanovic (Ed.), Language change and functional explanation (pp. 9–20). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as optimization. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett, Grammatical change. Origins, nature, outcomes (pp. 15–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S. (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd extensively revised and updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lüdtke, H. (Ed.). (1980a). Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
(1980b). Sprachwandel als universales Phänomen. In H. Lüdtke, (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 1–19). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
(1980c). Auf dem Weg zu einer Theorie des Sprachwandels. In H. Lüdtke, (Ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels (pp. 182–254). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Luraghi, S. (2010). Causes of language change. In S. Luraghi, & V. Bubenik (Eds.), The continuum companion to historical linguistics (pp. 354–366). London, New York: Continuum.
Milroy, J. (1992). Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.
(1999). Toward a speaker-based account of language change. In E. Jahr (Ed.), Language change: Advances in historical sociolinguistics (pp. 21–36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 339–384.
Ohala, J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In C. S. Maseck, R. A. Hendrick, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior (pp. 178–203). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Petré, P. 2017. The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics 21: 227–250.
. 2018. “The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization,” Language 94: 4, 1–35.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stein, D. (1985). Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Eaton, O. Fischer, W. Koopman, F. van der Leek, (Eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam, 10–13 April, 1985 (pp.283–302). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
(1988) Semantic similarity between categories as a vehicle of linguistic change. Diachronica 5:1, 1–20.
(1990). The semantics of syntactic change: Aspects of the evolution of do in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Toolan, M. (2002). The language myth and the law. In R. Harris (Ed.), The language myth in Western culture (pp. 159–182). Richmond: Curzon.
Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meaning; Some semanticpragmatic aspects of
grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics (pp. 245–271). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, E.C. & Heine, B. (Eds.) (1991) Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. I. Theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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.
