Cover not available

Article published In: Today’s Innovations, Tomorrow’s Conventions: Usage-based approaches to incipient developments in English
Edited by David Lorenz and David Tizón-Couto
[Functions of Language 32:1] 2025
► pp. 16–42

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

From constructional innovation to linguistic change

 | Osnabrück University
Published online: 3 March 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23013.ber
Abstract
On the basis of Present-day English corpus data, this paper investigates deliberate, adaptive linguistic innovations from a constructional perspective. The concrete phenomena addressed include the XYZ construction (“Copenhagen is the Paris of Denmark”), the X be not the Y-est Z in the Q construction (“He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed”), extrasentential not (“This is nice. Not.”), X much (“racist much?”), and the because X construction (“because science”). The paper first identifies speaker extravagance and sociocognitive salience as major factors in these innovations (Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Keller, Rudi. 1995. On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology/Psychology of Language 71. 1110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). A second question is how these deliberate and noticeable (salient, extravagant) innovations spread and may become routinized and conventionalized, or may even turn into abstract productive patterns. From a constructional perspective, structures may be copied verbatim, leading to an increase in token frequency. A simple increase in token frequency may already result in conventionalization and loss of salience (bleaching). But constructions may not only be copied verbatim. Language users may detect some abstract patterning, which, in turn, can then be used productively. The result would not necessarily be an increase in token, but in type frequency, resulting in snowcloning and general productivity. Arguably, this may lead to a slower loss of salience, e.g., while the abstract pattern and some individual instances become generally less salient, some new, innovative tokens may still be considered extravagant and may keep the pattern productive and noticeable. At the same time, constructions may undergo shifts in their particular constraints (e.g., for slot fillers).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguistic innovations
  • 3.Usage-based cognitive Construction Grammar
  • 4.Constructional innovations
    • 4.1New fillers, new variable slots: Snowcloning
    • 4.2New constructions, new meso-constructions
  • 5.From constructional innovation to linguistic change
  • References
References (44)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1989. Understanding linguistic innovations. In Leiv E. Breivik & Ernst. H. Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 5–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn. 2021. Individuality in language change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics. Studies in morphosyntactic variation in the Paston letters (1421–1503). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: a Construction Grammar perspective. English Language and Linguistics 14(2). 217–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Because science! Notes on a variable conjunction. In Elena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Nikola Kompa. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13.11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Lauren Squires (ed.), English in computer-mediated communication: Variation, representation, and change, 149–178. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Aspects of language. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language change. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Börgerding, Pia, Marie-Christine Benen & Alexander Bergs. 2020. Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik 31(1). 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. The constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1994. On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal 181. 5–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & David Casenhiser. 2005. Fast mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6). 500–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Robert Henderson. 2015. Expressive, much? Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 191. 286–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Expressive updates, much? Language 95(1). 107–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartmann, Stefan & Tobias Ungerer. 2023. Constructionist approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60(3). 599–634. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2019. Language and creativity: A construction grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1). 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022a. Construction Grammar. The structure of English. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022b. Constructionist approaches to creativity. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10(1). 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kanetani, Masaru. 2015. On the new usage of because. Studies in Language and Literature [Language] 681. 63–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1995. On language change. The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker. 2022. (Non-)ellipses in Dutch, English, and German. The case of because X. Nederlandse Taalkunde 273(3). 333–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, 101–124. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two ideas of creativity. In Martin Hinton (ed.), Evidence, experiment and argument in linguistics and philosophy of language, 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system. Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Franziska Günther. 2016. Toward a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology/Psychology of Language 71. 1110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kevin. 2010. Buffy (and SNL) ‘much’ much?: Slang research with Hulu.com, Part 2. Language and humor, June 8, 2010. Online: [URL]
Swift, Jonathan. 1726. Gulliver’s travels. London: Benjamin Motte.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theocharous, S. P., Evangelos Theocharous & John H. Lehman. 2012. The evaluation of the performance of two pyroelectric detectors with vertically aligned multi-walled carbon nanotube coatings. Infrared Physics & Technology 55(4). 299–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Construction grammar for kids. Constructions SV1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, Mark & Gilles Fauconnier. 1999. A mechanism of creativity. Poetics Today 20(3). 397–418.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue