In:At the Crossroads of Historical and Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Anna Rogos-Hebda and Heli Tissari
[Figurative Thought and Language 21] 2026
► pp. 68–91
Lexicalization and grammaticalization
An integrated cognitive linguistic and historical linguistic approach to language change
Published online: 29 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.21.04gyo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.21.04gyo
Abstract
Both lexical and grammatical elements involve particular perspectives in their description of
reality. This perspectivity is manifest in the semantic transparency of these linguistic items, revealing metaphorical
or metonymic interpretations of reality. Perspectivity is present even in semantically not transparent linguistic
items, but detectable only through a historical analysis. This transpires in the etymology of these elements often
through metonymic or metaphorical semantic changes. The change mostly starts out from an initial metonymic construal,
which often turns into a more abstract metaphorical conceptualization. This is illustrated from a cross-linguistic
perspective through the example of the lexicalization and grammaticalization of the notion of “future” by examining
the various manifestations of perspectivization in these historical processes in English, German, Swedish and
Hungarian.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Perspectivization and construal in lexicalization and grammaticalization
- 3.Construing the future in lexicalization and grammaticalization
- 4.Metonymic construals as initiators of novel categorizations
- 5.Conclusion
References
References (63)
Anttila, R. (1992). Field
theory of meaning and semantic change. In G. Kellermann & M. D. Morrissey (Eds.), Diachrony
within synchrony: Language history and
cognition (pp. 23–83). Peter Lang.
Barcelona, A. (2000a). Introduction:
the cognitive theory of metaphor and
metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive
perspective (pp. 1–28). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2000b). On
the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual
metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor
and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive
perspective (pp. 31–58). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2009). Motivation
of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and
inference. In K-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy
and metaphor in
grammar (pp. 363–401). John Benjamins.
Bárczi, G., Benkő, L., & Berrár, J. (1967). A
magyar nyelv története. [History of the Hungarian
language.] Tankönyvkiadó.
Blank, A. (1999a). Why
do new meanings occur? A cognitive typology of the motivations for lexical semantic
change. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical
semantics and
cognition (pp. 61–89). Mouton de Gruyter.
(1999b). Co-presence
and succession: A cognitive typology of
metonymy. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy
in language and
thought (pp. 169–191). John Benjamins.
(2001). Pathways
of lexicalization. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (Eds.), Language
typology and language universals, vol.
II. (pp. 1596–1608). Walter de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization
and language change. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2007). Diachronic
linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 945–987). Oxford University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Linguistic
meaning, communicative meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind &
Language, 17(1–2), 127–148.
(2013). Language
use and the evolution of languages. In P. Binder & K. Smith (Eds.), The
language
phenomenon (pp. 93–120). Springer.
DWDS. Digitales Wörterbuch der
deutschen Sprache. [Digital Dictionary of the German
Language.] [URL], accessed August, 2024.
Fried, M. (2010). Introduction:
From instances of change to explanations of
change. In M. Fried, J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Variation
and change. Pragmatic perspectives (Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights, vol.
6) (pp. 1–16). John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic
prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Clarendon Press.
(1999). Diachronic
prototype semantics: A digest. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical
semantics and
cognition (pp. 91–107). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2010). Prospects
for the past: Perspectives for cognitive diachronic
semantics. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical
cognitive
linguistics (pp. 333–356). Walter de Gruyter.
Győri, G. (1996). Historical
aspects of categorization. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive
linguistics in the Redwoods: The expansion of a new paradigm in
linguistics (pp. 175–206). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2000). Semantic
change as linguistic interpretation of the
world. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence
for linguistic
relativity (pp. 71–89). John Benjamins.
(2017). What
happens to the basic level in language?: Some theoretical considerations with cross-linguistic
examples. Cognitive Linguistic
Studies, 4(2), 171–193.
(2022). The
effect of figurative thought on basic level categorization: How categories come to be formed and
named. In M. Brdar & R. Brdar-Szabó (Eds.), Figurative
thought and language in
action (pp. 89–112). John Benjamins.
Johnson, M. (1987). The
body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago Press.
Koch, P. (2012). The
pervasiveness of contiguity and metonymy in semantic
change. In K. Allan & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Current
methods in historical
semantics (pp. 259–311). Mouton de Gruyter.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). A
new look at metaphorical creativity in cognitive linguistics. Cognitive
Linguistics, 21(4), 655–689.
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy:
Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive
Linguistics 9(1): 37–77.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations
of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
(2011). Grammaticalization
and Cognitive Grammar. In: H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
grammaticalization (pp. 79–91). Oxford University Press.
Lipka, L. (1992). An
outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and
word-formation (2nd edition). Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Moore, K. E. (2014). The
spatial language of time: Metaphor, metonymy, and frames of reference. John Benjamins.
Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (1992). Outline
of a model for semantic change. In: Kellermann, G. & Morrissey, M. D. (Eds.), Diachrony
within synchrony: Language history and
cognition (pp. 125–141). Peter Lang Verlag.
OED. Oxford English Dictionary. [URL], accessed October 2024.
Radden, G. (2002). How
metonymic are metaphors? In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor
and metonymy in comparison and
contrast (pp. 407–434). Mouton de Gruyter.
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards
a theory of metonymy. In K-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy
in language and
thought (pp. 17–59). John Benjamins.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles
of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition
and
categorization (pp. 27–48). Erlbaum.
Sweetser, E. E. (1988). Grammaticalization
and semantic bleaching. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Berkeley
Linguistics Society 14: General Session and Parasession on
Grammaticalization (pp. 389–405). Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Talmy, L. (2007). Attention
phenomena. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 48–81). Oxford University Press.
(2003). The
key is social cognition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language
in mind: Advances in the study of language and
thought (pp. 46–57). The MIT Press.
Traugott, E. C. (1999a). The
role of pragmatics in semantic change. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics
in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, vol.
II. (pp. 93–102). International Pragmatics Association.
(1999b). The
rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: A study in
subjectification. In A. Blank & P. Koch (Eds.), Historical
semantics and
cognition (pp. 237–257). Mouton de Gruyter.
(2012). Pragmatics
and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge University Press.
Uralonet. Uráli Etimológiai
Adatbázis. [Uralic Etymological
Database.] [URL], accessed July, 2024.
Verhagen, A. (2007). Construal
and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 265–293). Oxford University Press.
Verschueren, J., & Brisard, F. (2009). Adaptability. In J. Verschueren & J-O. Ostman (Eds.), Key
notions for
pragmatics (pp. 28–47). (Handbook
of Pragmatics Highlights 1.) John Benjamins.
Winters, M. E. (1992). Diachrony
within synchrony: The challenge of cognitive
grammar. In M. Pütz (Ed.), Thirty
years of linguistic evolution: Studies in honour of René Dirven on the occasion of his sixtieth
birthday (pp. 503–512). John Benjamins.
(2010). Introduction:
On the emergence of diachronic cognitive
linguistics. In M. E. Winters, H. Tissari & K. Allan (Eds.), Historical
Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 3–27). Walter de Gruyter.
Wischer, I. (2000). Grammaticalization
versus lexicalization: ‘Methinks’ there is some
confusion. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways
of change: Grammaticalization in
English (pp. 355–370). John Benjamins.