Constructional Changes
and Constructionalization
Elizabeth Closs Traugott
traugott@stanford.edu
in collaboration with Graeme Trousdale
University of Santiago de Compostela, Oct. 16th 2012
1
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Some key points about construction grammar.
Diachronic construction grammar.
A constructional account of change.
Constructional changes.
Constructionalization.
Grammatical constructionalization.
Lexical constructionalization.
Intermediate constructionalization.
The way-construction revisited.
Conclusions.
2
Construction grammar
• There are several versions of construction grammar
(CxG).
• All now conceive of it as a theory of grammar as a
whole (Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006, Sag 2012), not
only idioms and idiosyncracies, e.g. let alone, What’s
this fly doing in my soup? (Fillmore, Kay &
O’Connor 1988; partly also Goldberg 1995).
3
Some General Assumptions
• Tenets common to all approaches (Goldberg Forthc):
1. The basic unit of grammar is the construction (Cxn):
a conventional pairing of form and meaning e.g.
ditransitive He gave her a book:
(1) [[SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2] [X cause Y receive Z]].
- It is therefore a theory of symbolic structures.
- It is a non-modular theory—morphosyntax,
phonology, semantics, pragmatics, discourse
function all interact; they cannot be studied
separately.
4
2. Semantic structure is mapped directly on to surface
syntactic structure, without derivations (e.g.
Goldberg 2002, Culicover & Jackendoff 2005).
3. Cross-linguistic (and dialectal) variation can be
accounted by a mix of:
- “domain-general cognitive processes”
(e.g. Bybee 2010, Goldberg Forthc),
- variety-specific constructions (e.g. Croft 2001;
also Haspelmath 2008).
5
Common to a subset of approaches:
• Cxns (and therefore grammars) are language-specific,
not universal (Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006).
• Language structure is shaped by language use
(Barlow & Kemmer 2000, Bybee 2010).
• Language, like other cognitive systems, is a network
of nodes and links between nodes:
[W]e can describe a language as a structured
inventory of conventional linguistic units. This
structure—the organization of units into
networks and assemblies—is intimately related
to language use, both shaping it and being
shaped by it. (Langacker 2008: 222; also Hudson
2007)
6
•
Cxns have subcomponents. In some formal models
these are features, cf. Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar (Fried & Östman 2004), Sign Based
Construction Grammar (Sag 2012).
• In Radical CxG (Croft 2001) Cxns have six
subcomponents:
- form:
syntax, morphology, phonology,
- meaning: pragmatics, semantics, discourse
functions.
• My approach to CxG is a usage-based and most
directly associated with Goldberg (2006) and Croft
(2001) but I also draw opportunistically on insights
from all models.
7
• Cxns can be atomic or complex and of any size from
affix to abstract schemas with slots, e.g.:
(2) Morpheme
un-, -dom, -s
Word
data, if
Complex word
overlook, drop-out
Idiom (partially filled) pain in the X
Ditransitive
SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2
(She gave him a book)
Passive
SUBJ aux VPpp (PPby) (The
man was struck by lightning)
Conditional
If X (then) Y (If you leave now
you will get here on time)
8
• Distinguish degrees of abstraction:
- constructs: tokens (actual utterances, written
sentences/clauses),
- micro-Cxns: types: individual conventionalized
Cxns (e.g. be going to, beside, a lot of, table),
- (partial) schemas: types of conventionalized
abstract patterns with open slots (e.g. passive,
ditransitive).
• Schemas may have subschemas (e.g. for ditransitive:
cause-receive (give), cause-not-receive (deny),
intend-receive (bake), etc.).
9
• Cxns are on a gradient from grammatical/procedural
to lexical/contentful:
• GCxns are procedural and non-referential: they
signal:
- linguistic relations (e.g. case, aspect, relative
tense),
- perspectives (e.g. modality, metatextual
markers),
- deictic orientation (e.g. definiteness, tense,
information-structure marking) (Diewald 2011).
10
• Lexical constructions (LCxns) are contentful and
referential, e.g. talk, powerlifting, word-formations
(Adj-ness, N-dom).
• “Intermediate” constructions (ICxns) are partially
contentful, partially grammatical, e.g. some adverbs
(tomorrow, frankly), way-Cxn, give X a V-ing (e.g.
give someone a talking to/roasting, Trousdale 2008),
and valency Cxns (e.g. ditransitive, resultative).
• A terminological caution: Jackendoff (2002: 176)
refers to the way-Cxn, resultative, etc. as “a lexical
item in its own right that undergoes free combination
with verbs”. I agree that there is not a lexical rule
creating new V-argument structure, but not that the
Cxn is a “lexical item”.
11
A constructional account of change
• Recently considerable interest in “diachronic
construction grammar” (starting with Noël 2007,
Bergs & Diewald 2008).
• The field addresses a range of theoretical topics from
lexicalization (Lxn) (Lehmann 2002, Brinton &
Traugott 2005), to grammaticalization (Gzn)
(Lehmann 1995).
• In most cases a historical dimension has been added
to a largely synchronic theory, or CxG has been seen
as “a tool for diachronic analysis” (Fried 2009, title).
12
• It’s time to take the potential of CxG and rethink/
resynthesize what we know about language change
in terms of this model of grammar.
• Traugott & Trousdale (Forthc) seeks to develop a
coherent and restrictive account from a usage-based
CxG perspective of the development over time of
Cxns on the gradient from grammatical to lexical.
13
Some tenets for a constructional view of change:
• The construct (token utterance) is the locus of change.
• The path of a change is (typically) from construct to
micro-Cxn to schema.
• Any feature or subcomponent may be subject to
change.
• Any subschema may be expanded or contracted.
• Relationships among (sub)schemas in the network
may be reorganized.
• Changes are “incremental adjustments” (Hoffmann &
Trousdale 2011: 13) to the “internal dimensions of a
Cxn” (Gisborne 2011: 156) or of a (sub)schema.
14
A question:
• Are all incremental adjustments to a micro-Cxn of the
same type?
• A consensus is developing that the answer is No
(papers at SLE 44, 2011 by Rostila, Smirnova, and
Traugott). All proposed a distinction between:
- constructional change (CC)
- constructionalization (Cxzn)
(but did not agree on the distinction between them!).
15
Constructional changes
• Constructional changes (CCs): changes that affect
subcomponents of a Cxn, e.g.
- semantics (want ‘lack’ > ‘desire’),
- syntax (main verb will > auxiliary will),
- morphophonology (auxiliary will > ‘ll).
• CCs may be form changes or meaning changes,
but not both.
• They are discrete micro-steps in development.
• They do not form new nodes in a network.
16
Constructionalization
• “Constructionalization” (Cxzn): a subset of CCs in
which formnew-meaningnew (combinations) of signs
are created.
• New (combinations of) signs are created through a
sequence of small-step neo-analyses of form or
meaning (CCs).
• Accompanied by changes in degree of:
- schematicity (abstractness),
- productivity (type and token frequency),
- compositionality (transparency of link
between form and meaning).
17
• New Cxns (output of Cxzn) form new nodes in a
network.
• New Cxns (output of Cxzn) may be:
- atomic (will) or complex (X-dom, a lot of),
- specific (will) or schematic (AUX; schemas often
have open slots: X-dom),
- grammatical/procedural, lexical/contenful, or
intermediate.
18
• CCs prior to Cxzn enable Cxzn, CCs post Cxzn may
allow for increasingly frequent use, reduction of
form, and a variety of changes:
(3)
PreCxzn CCs

Cxzn

PostCxzn CCs
• Note these distinctions are linguists’ generalizations
and categorizations based on textual data, not
necessarily neuronal changes.
19
The Gradient Output of Cxzn
• Grammatical constructionalization (GCxzn) is the
development of (mostly) procedural formnewmeaningnew (combinations) of signs.
• Lexical constructionalization (LCxzn) is the
development of (mostly) contentful formnewmeaningnew (combinations) of signs.
• Intermediate constructionalization (ICxzn) is the
development of partially contentful and partially
procedural formnew-meaningnew (combinations) of
signs.
• What is important in identifying types of Cxzn is
output, not input.
20
• Some CCs and Cxzns may be generalized and come to
be systemic, e.g.:
The loss of inflectional case in English initially
involved individual Cxns (e.g. the old dative affix
was replaced in part by to, genitive by of). But
collectively the changes are systemic, contributing
to overall shifts toward a largely more analytic
system.
• Systemic changes are among the contexts in which
particular changes occur (Fischer 2007).
21
Overview of GCxzn
• Much prior work done in terms of morphosyntactic
change and grammaticalization (Gzn).
• Two main views of Gzn:
A. The tradition of “grammaticalization as increased
reduction and dependency” (GIRD), e.g. Lehmann
(1995), Haspelmath (2004). Typical exs.:
(4) a. Latin cantare habeo 'sing:INF have:1sg'
> French chanterai 'sing:FUT:1sg’,
b. BE going to > BE gonna.
22
B. The tradition of “grammaticalization as extension”
(GE), e.g. “The process by which grammar is created”
(Croft 2006: 366). Exs. are syntax-, discourse-related
as well as morphosyntactic, e.g.:
(5) say (imperative of main verb say) > ‘suppose, for
example’ (Brinton 2008a).
• Focus on:
- expansion of semantic-pragmatic, syntactic,
collocational (“host-class”) range (Himmelmann
2004), e.g.:
(6) motion BE going to with constraints on V
> ‘future’ with few constraints on V.
.23
• GIRD and GE are not orthogonal (Traugott 2010),
but intertwined.
• Expansion is the logical outcome of most of
Lehmann’s (1995) reduction “parameters”.
• GCxzn is typically correlated with (Trousdale 2010):
- increase in schematicity (greater abstraction),
- increase in productivity (in Cxn-(sub)types, and
in token frequency),
- decrease in compositionality (loss of transparency
in link between form and meaning).
24
• But Cxns and subschemas may obsolesce, so
productivity may be lost in later stages.
• Therefore, although there is directionality, there is
no uni-directionality.
25
Overview of LCxzn
• Much prior work done in lexicalization (Lxn).
• Typically thought of in terms of reduction (LIR)
(Lehmann 2002, Brinton & Traugott 2005), e.g.:
Lexicalization is a process by which complex
word-formations and other syntagmatic
constructions become syntactically and
semantically fixed entries of the mental lexicon.
(Blank 2001: 1603)
(7) bullet-hole, button-hole, cupboard, gar ‘spear’ +
leac ‘leek’ > garlic.
26
• But this excludes the development of word-formation
(W-F) patterns in the first place.
• The development of W-F patterns is LCxzn involving
expansion (lexical/contentful to LE):
(8) dom ‘status’ (but not ‘doom’) > derivational affix.
• Expansion may be followed by reduction:
(9) OE ræden ‘status’ > derivational affix.
-ræden obsolesced during ME as productive affix;
now found only in kindred, hatred.
27
• LCxzn as development of schematic W-F is
correlated with:
- increase in schematicity
- increase in productivity
- decrease in compositionality
• LCxzn as development of specific micro-Cxns may
however be correlated with:
- decrease in schematicity
- decrease in productivity
- further decrease in compositionality
• Note Trousdale’s (2010) hypothesis that LCxzn is
correlated only with decrease no longer holds.
28
Overview of ICxzn
• Most obvious cases of ICxzn involve argument
structure.
• Trousdale (2008) discusses the development in the
18thC of e.g. give someone a talking to/roasting:
(10) [[give X a Ving]
[cause X receive verbal/physical insult
repeatedly]]
• Intermediate because:
- atelic, often iterative, complex predicate Cxn
(grammatical/procedural),
- non-compositional contentful meaning (usually
verbal insult) (lexical/contentful),
- ditransitive structure.
.
29
• Now coexists with earlier largely telic complex
predicates with light Vs (e.g. give John a bath
[contrast bathe John] Brinton 2008b).
• Ditransitives undergo ICxzn:
- changes in subschemas (Colleman & De Clerck
2011 on English, Torrent 2011 on Brazilian
Portuguese),
- depending on language type, changes in
morphological case (Barðdal 2008 on Icelandic).
30
The way-Cxn revisited
• The way-Cxn underwent ICxzn; has been said to be:
- primarily lexical (Broccias 2012),
- primarily grammatical (Gisborne & Patten 2011,
Mondorf 2011).
• Building on Israel (1996), Mondorf (2011),
development toward the grammatical pole can be
identified.
• Israel focuses on semantics (how motion, path,
manner, and cause are combined), the sequential rise
of patterns/”threads”, and the role of analogy.
• Mondorf focuses on relation to resultatives.
31
• Note the way-Cxn is structurally a fake transitive;
- most subschemas involve non-bounded Vs,
- the newest manner/accompaniment subschema:
(11) giggled her way to fame. (1997 Nash, Solid
Goldie [COCA])
is typically iterative. Israel called it “accidental
accompaniment”.
• Jackendoff (1990: 213) suggests V in a PDE
way-Cxn must designate a repeated action or
unbounded activity, but iterative mainly true of this
newest subschema.
32
• Some contemporary exs. of the way-Cxn:
(12) a. Nix de la Fuente scowled at the editorial as she
made her way from her car to the latest crime scene.
(2012 Garner, Kiss of the Vampire [COCA])
b. Ignoring her thanks, he went his way. (2006 Stroud,
The Golem’s Way [COCA])
c. I don't have to elbow my way through crowds to
chase the tournament leaders from hole to hole.
(2012 Hurt, Green Party [COCA])
d. she trash-talked her way into a Strikeforce title shot.
(March 4th 2012, Vancouver Sun [Google])
33
• Precursors: some very early constructs with wei, but
not surface transitive (13a), not Poss (13b, c), or wei
is plural (13b):
(13) a. Moyses … ferde forþ on his weiʒ.
‘Moses went forth on his way’.
(c. 1175 H Rood 4/33 [MED wei n(1), 2b (a)])
b. And went the wayes hym before.
‘and went the way in front of him’.
(a1400 Parl 3 Ages 37 [MED wei n(1), 2b (a)])
c. and to him þane wei he nam.
‘and to him the way he took’.
(c. 1200 Orm 3465 [MED wei n(1), 2b (b)])
34
• MED (wei n(1), 2b) says “wei and phrases such as on
wei combine with almost any verb denoting
locomotion, forward progress, or the like”.
• Citations appear with go, wend, fare, ride, flee/fly,
ride, nim- ‘take’, take, drive forth.
• Preferred without directional (DIR) before 1500:
(14) Ah, flih, flih þinne wæi & burh þine life!
‘Ah, flee, flee your way and save your life!’
(c.1275 Layamon, Brut 8024 [MED wei n(1), 2b (d)])
35
• These are not way-Cxns, but particular examples of
(15) [[SUBJanim Vimotion DIR] [‘traverse a path’]]
In (15) way is a member of DIR (answers ‘Where did
X go?).
(16) [[SUBJanim Vtacquisition OBJ] [‘take a path’]]
In (16) way is a member of OBJ (answers ‘What did
X take (figuratively)?).
36
• By early 17thC, Cxzn of two new Cxns:
I) Intransitive/unergative motion V without DIR, typical
of religious texts:
(17) Iesus saith vnto him, Go thy way, thy sonne liueth.
And the man beleeued the word that Iesus had spoken
vnto him, and he went his way. (1611 King James Bible,
New Testament [HC centest2])
(It continues to be preferred without DIR, e.g. all 55
exs. with go in COCA have no DIR, see (12b)).
II) Transitive acquisition V with DIR:
(18) At last comes a notable clowne from Greenham,
taking his way to Newbery. (1619 Deloney, Jack of
Newbury [HC cefict2b])
37
• With expansion of transitive acquisition schema
to use with causative V, reorganization as a
superschema with two subschemas, one motion,
the other causative.
(19) [[NPi V POSSi way DIR]
[‘traverse (created) path by/while doing V’]]
[[NPi V POSSi way DIR]
[traverse path]]
[[NPi V POSSi way DIR]]
[‘create path]]
38
• The causative subschema itself has two subsubschemas: Vs involving obstruction (20a), Vs that
do not (20b):
(20) a. Afterwards about a dozen of them went into
the Kitchin, forcing their way against all the Bolts
and Locks. (1690 Trial of John Williams et al. [OBP
t16900430-8])
b. the Fire; which on the East side had from
Mascalucia made its way to St. Giovanni di
Galermo (1669 Winchilsea, Earthquake and Eruption
of Mt. Ætna [Lampeter msca1669.sgm])
39
Networks
• Throughout its history networked with expansion of Vs
encoding manner, especially Vi linked to sound
emission (chug, rumble, splash, slosh) (Fanego 2012).
• Because require DIR, linked primarily to “create a
path” (Vt) subtype.
• Also networked and in competition with self-resultative
(Mondorf 2011).
• By 20thC self- preferred with abstract, way with
concrete resultatives (Mondorf 2011: 418):
(21) a. Worked himself into a frenzy and gave himself
indigestion. [BNC wridom1]
b. … he worked his way down the steep bank
toward the stream. [FROWN]
40
• By early 19thC, a new subschema is evidenced (CC),
involving manner, but not motion Vs (e.g. elbow,
beg), and wide variety of Vs, e.g.:
(22) a. and shot my way home the next day; having,
previously to my setting out, equally divided
the game between the three.
(1820-2 Hunt, Memoirs of Henry Hunt [CL 2])
b. The steamer … plashed its way forward.
(1842 Borrow, Bible in Spain [CL 2])
• Members of this subschema have high typefrequency but low token frequency.
• Strongly associated with iterativity.
41
• Over time there has been:
- increase in schematicity,
- increase in productivity,
- decrease in compositionality,
- category strengthening,
- shift toward procedural status (the newest
subschema (iterative accompaniment of pathmaking) is the most distinctly procedural and
abstract).
42
Conclusions
• The theoretical architecture of CxG demands thinking in
terms of both form and meaning equally.
• The methodology of:
- looking for both form and meaning changes,
- distinguishing Cxzn from pre-Cxzn CCs and
post-Cxzn CCs,
suggests new ways of interpreting the data in a principled
and consistent way.
• Conceptualizing GCxzn as (mostly) procedural outputs
suggests a wider range of data can be subsumed under
GCxzn than has typically been the case under Gzn.
43
• Conceptualizing LCxzn as (mostly) contentful
outputs suggests a way of accounting for W-F that
integrates it with other types of Cxzn, and allows a
far wider range of data to be considered than has
typically been the case under Lxn.
• Conceptualizing ICxzn as involving both contentful
and procedural elements allows a richer account of
gradience than is sometimes envisaged (e.g. by Aarts
2007).
• A constructional approach allows a unified crossdomain approach to micro-changes.
44
Thank you for your attention!
45
Data sources
BNC British National Corpus. 2007. Distributed by Oxford
University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC
Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English 19902010. 2008–. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young
University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
FROWN The Freiburg-Brown Corpus. Original release 1999
compiled by Christian Mair. Release 2007 compiled by
Christian Mair and Geoffrey Leech.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/FROWN/.
46
HC Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Compiled by Matti
Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary);
Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara
Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu
Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern
English). Department of English, University of Helsinki.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/
index.html
MED The Middle English Dictionary. 1956-2001. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/.
OBP Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online 1674-1913.
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/.
47
References
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of
Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: OUP.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and
Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage Based
Models of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions
and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blank, Andreas. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In Martin
Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang
Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals.
Vol II. 1596-1608. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008a. The Comment Clause in English:
Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge:
CUP.
48
----. 2008b. ‘Where grammar and lexis meet’: Composite
predicates in English. In Elena Seoane & María José LópezCouso, eds., in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Theoretical
and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization, 3-53.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
---- & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and
Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.
Broccias, Cristiano. 2012. The syntax-lexicon continuum. In
Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds., The
Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 735-747. New
York: OUP.
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition.
Cambridge: CUP.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic
Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
----. 2006. Typology. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller, eds.,
The Handbook of Linguistics, 337-368. Oxford: Blackwell.
49
Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional
semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the
English double object constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 22:
183-209.
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax.
New York: OUP.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and
pragmaticalization. In Narrog & Heine, eds., 450-461.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor.
1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions. Language 64: 501-538.
Fanego, Teresa. 2012. Complex motion events in the history of
English: On the emergence of the construction type Sir Ascelin
clanked into the hall. Paper presented at SLE 45, Stockholm,
August 29th.
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and
Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP.
Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction grammar as a tool for
diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1: 262-291.
50
---- & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A
thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman, eds.,
Construction Grammar in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, 1186. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2011. Constructions, Word Grammar, and
grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 155-182
Gisborne, Nikolas & Amanda Patten 2011. Construction grammar
and grammaticalization. In Narrog & Heine, eds., 92-104.
Goldberg, Adele A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction
Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: U of
Chicago Press.
----. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations.
Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327-56.
----. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization
in Language. Oxford: OUP.
51
----. Forthc. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann &
Graeme Trousdale, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar. New York: OUP.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with
particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel
Norde & Harry Perridon, eds., Up and Down the Cline – The Nature
of Grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Parametric versus functional explanation of
syntactic universals. In Theresa Biberauer, ed., The Limits of
Syntactic Variation, 75-107. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization:
Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
& Björn Wiemer, eds., What Makes Grammaticalization - A Look
from its Fringes and its Components, 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2011. Variation, change, and
constructions in English. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 1-23.
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar.
Oxford: OUP.
52
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele
Goldberg, ed., Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language,
217-230. Stanford: CSLI Publ.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
----. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar,
Evolution. New York: OUP.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic
Introduction. New York: OUP.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization.
Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.
----. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization.
In Wischer & Diewald, eds., 1-18.
Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative
constructions. Language Variation and Change 22: 397-421.
Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of
Grammaticalization. New York: OUP.
53
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and
grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14: 177202.
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An
informal synopsis. In Hans C. Boas and Ivan A. Sag, eds.,
Sign-based Construction Grammar, 69-209. Stanford
University: CSLI Publications.
http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/publications.html.
Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2011. The construction network
hypothesis. In Letras & Letras 27: Construções Emergentes:
Gramática de Construções e Gramaticalização.
http://www.letraseletras.ileel.ufu.br/viewissue.php?id=21
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Silvia
Luraghi & Vit Bubenik, eds., Continuum Companion to
Historical Linguistics, 269-283. London: Continuum Press.
54
---- & Graeme Trousdale. Forthc. Constructionalization and
Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Constructions in grammaticalization
and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite
predicate construction in English. In Graeme Trousdale &
Nikolas Gisborne, eds., Constructional Approaches to English
Grammar, 33-67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
----. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to
grammaticalization in English. In Katerina Stathi, Elke
Gehweiler & Ekkehard König, eds., Grammaticalization:
Current Views and Issues, 51-72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wischer, Ilse & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002. New Reflections on
Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
55