Contentful constructionalization

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Historical Linguistics 4:2 © 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicy For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Contentful constructionalization* Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale Stanford University / University of Edinburgh

We present a constructionalization framework for thinking about the development of contentful (“lexical”) constructions over time. This framework incorporates and goes beyond earlier work on lexicalization, which largely focuses on reduction in the form of specific lexical items. A constructionalist perspective draws attention to meaning as well as form, and to schemas as well as specific micro-constructions. Contentful constructionalization involves expansion as well as reduction, as evidenced by the rise of schemas and the specific constructions they license, for example word-formation schemas such as nominals ending in -hood (e.g. brotherhood) and snowclone schemas (e.g. X BE the new Y). We partially confirm and also extend earlier arguments that, although they have different outputs, lexicalization and grammaticalization result from similar processes of change. However, there are differences. For example, only minimal local, rather than extensive syntactic, expansion is typically involved. Once a contentful schema has come into being the new expressions it sanctions are coined instantaneously rather than gradually. Keywords: constructionalization, contentful constructions, procedural constructions, schemas, expansion, reduction, lexicalization, grammaticalization, word formation, snowclones

1. Introduction1 Much work on language change has in recent years been done from the perspective of construction grammar (e.g. Bergs & Diewald 2008, Barðdal 2008, Fried 2007, 2010, Hilpert 2013, Traugott & Trousdale 2013, Barðdal et al. forthcoming). The focus has for the most part been on the development of grammatical constructions and potential links with and implications for grammaticalization. However, since new constructions coding lexical semantics also develop over time, a large area of change remains to be investigated from a constructional perspective, although

Journal of Historical Linguistics 4:2 (2014), 256–283. doi 10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra issn 2210–2116 / e-issn 2210-2124 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Contentful constructionalization 257

recently there has been some work on the development of lexical constructions and of word-formation patterns (see Sections 2.3–2.4). In this article, we seek to provide an account of constructional change that explains the rise of lexical as well as grammatical schemas. Hereafter we refer to lexical as contentful material and grammatical as procedural material, to avoid confusion with the multiple meanings of “lexical” and “grammatical”.2 Our aim is to provide a new way of thinking about and going beyond the type of change usually referred to as lexicalization. The tradition of work in lexicalization typically starts with a string that is already used in a fixed way and later comes to be used as a “word”, whether by compounding (e.g. blackboard), or fixing of a clause (e.g. whodunit). Focus is almost always on specific items, not classes of items (for example, Himmelmann 2004: 37 observes that applicability of pattern is not a characteristic of lexicalization but is a major feature of grammaticalization). However, we show that if the development of new contentful constructions is considered in parallel with that of new procedural ones, it can readily be seen that patterns may emerge over time that result in both types of constructions. One obvious domain is that of word-formation with originally contentful bases, such as -hood, -dom, -man (e.g. bachelorhood, stardom, swordsman). Another is that of larger expressions such as snowclones of the type X BE the new Y (e.g. Grey is the new black in promoting fashion design, advocating respect for age, etc.). A constructional perspective is especially helpful because it allows distinctions to be made between changes at the abstract level of the pattern or schema as well as that of the specific syntactic string. In what follows we present a constructionalist way of thinking about: i. the rise and obsolescence of some nominal word-formation patterns ii. the development of snowclones Examples are from the history of English. Section 2 outlines the constructionalist architecture and approach to change that we adopt and briefly mentions prior constructionalist work on word-formation and snowclones. Section 3 illustrates nominal word-formation developments. The development of snowclones is outlined in Section 4. Section 5 interprets these developments in terms of the constructionalist approach outlined in Section 2. Major similarities and differences between contentful and procedural constructionalization are outlined in Section 6. Section 7 concludes and argues for a model of change in which both form and meaning are equally privileged. Key topics throughout include: i. the hierarchic differences between schemas and specific individual constructions ii. the intertwining of expansion and reduction in constructionalization iii. the roles of compositionality, productivity and schematicity © 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

258 Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale

2. A constructionalist approach to change In this section we briefly outline the key factors that characterize our constructionalist approach and mention some prior constructionalist work on lexical/contentful change and the development of word-formation patterns. 2.1 The constructional architecture A constructionalist approach to language change assumes an architecture built out of form-meaning pairings (signs). Some models of construction grammar, including the one we adopt, are usage-based and cognitive (see Goldberg 1995, 2006, Croft 2001). That is, they envisage language as both interactive communication and means of logical expression. According to all versions of construction grammar from Goldberg (1995) to Boas & Sag (2012), the basic unit of construction grammar is the sign. Grammar is conceptualized as a non-modular system, and therefore no one linguistic domain such as syntax is core. Constructions are made up of features: minimally, semantics, pragmatics and discourse function on the meaning side, and syntax, morphology and phonology on the form side (see Croft 2001). Constructions are organized at various levels of generality and may be formally specific or schematic, or something in between. Schemas are abstract, sometimes wholly so (e.g. ditransitive SUBJ V OBJ1 OBJ2, exemplified by I gave Kim the book) sometimes partially so (e.g. X BE the new Y, exemplified by Ugly is the new cute), but schematic constructions always involve slots with variables.3,4 Whether contentful or procedural, schemas are instantiated by item-specific constructions such as (contentful) blackboard and (procedural) must. In between are subschemas, which are clusters of constructions with similar form and meaning, such as the refusal and intended transfer subschemas of the ditransitive (the pattern exemplified by I denied Kim the book which entails that the recipient was refused the item vs. the patterns exemplified by I baked Kim a cake which entail only that the agent intended for the recipient to receive the item). The hierarchic organization of subschemas may change over time (see Colleman & De Clerck 2011 on changes in subschemas of the ditransitive construction). In terms of their formal and functional characteristics over time, the fillers of slots in (sub)schemas may also vary across speakers and over time. In other words, the slots themselves, considered from the perspective of a group of speakers who may be said to “speak the same language”, may display gradient properties: what is acceptable for some speakers may not be so for others. The slots are therefore not necessarily entirely open and may display clustering around some prototype. (For the gradience of constructions at all levels, see Trousdale 2013). For instance, in

© 2014. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved


the snowclone schema X BE not the A-est N in NP, as in He’s not the sharpest tool in the box, there is a clear preference for the polysemous adjective to have one of its meanings refer to mental acuity. Other instances are attested (He’s not the sweetest marshmallow in the fire) but are less canonical. We follow Goldberg (2006) in suggesting that a construction may be a unit of any size from affix (e.g. -ing) to complex clause (e.g. conditional if-then).5 A distinction to be used below is between a construction as a conventionalized formmeaning pair (a construction-type) and a construct, a token instance used in speech or writing. Construction-types are stored in an inventory called the constructicon. Constructs may also be stored temporarily. (See Hudson 2007 for a similar claim in a related framework .) Change occurs when constructs come to be recategorized as types shared across a group of speakers. 2.2 Constructionalization and constructional changes Briefly, constructionalization is the development of formnew-meaningnew pairs (signs), whether specific signs, or schemas (for details see Traugott & Trousdale 2013). For example the OE verb will- ‘to will’ came to be used as a specific modal. This, along with scul- ‘to owe’, led to the rise of a MODAL schema, which acquired and is still acquiring new members, among them (had) better (see Krug 2000, Denison & Cort 2010).6 Within the MODAL schema there are subschemas such as ability (can), deontic (must, have to, etc. in an obligation sense) and epistemic modals (must, have to in the sense of speaker conclusion and inference). These subschemas are form-meaning pairs because they differ not only in meaning but also in syntactic distribution, at least in part. By contrast, constructional changes are changes to features of extant constructions, such as semantics (e.g. wif ‘woman’ > ‘married woman’, an example of semantic narrowing) or morphophonology (e.g. had > ’d, an example of reduction of phonological segments). As will be shown in the sections that follow, change involves the complex interaction of expansion and reduction, involving at times constructionalization, at others, constructional changes. With respect to expansion, Himmelmann’s (2004) seminal work on context expansion in lexicalization and what he calls “grammaticization” has been particularly influential. His insight is that although both lexicalization and grammaticalization had up to that point largely been thought of in terms of reduction and univerbation (e.g. Lehmann 1995, 2004 for grammaticalization, Brinton & Traugott 2005 for lexicalization), in fact both occur in expanding contexts. These expanding contexts are of three kinds: syntagmatic, host-class (collocational) and semantic-pragmatic. In the years since Himmelmann’s article was published, work has progressed on thinking about how expansion such as the cases he discusses



and the reductions traditionally associated with grammaticalization can be reconciled. Perspectives on the issue range from usage-based research such as Bybee (2010), Booij (2010) and Traugott & Trousdale (2013) to quantificational corpus research such as Hilpert (2008, 2013), and to Minimalist approaches such as Roberts (2010). This research suggests that expansion and reduction are intertwined, as is also argued in this paper for contentful constructionalization. 2.2.1 Types of expansion Two types of expansion that are of particular relevance to constructionalization are increase in productivity and increase in schematicity. Productivity concerns what Barðdal (2008) calls “extensibility” and constraints on it (Boas 2008). Drawing on Barðdal (2008) and Bybee (2010), we interpret extensibility as being of two types: i. the extent to which schemas sanction other less schematic construction-types (type-frequency) ii. expansion of constructs, i.e. increased use of construction-types (token-frequency) Synchronically, productivity concerns the potential for new assembly; historically, it concerns textual evidence that such assemblies came to be newly made. Typeproductivity is gradient, as illustrated by the fact that some contentful patterns may have many members (e.g. A-ness, as in unhappiness), others relatively few (e.g. A-ity, as in obesity), and the extent to which a pattern that is used as a template for new expressions may change over time. Likewise, token productivity changes. High token frequency may be the trigger for the development of new types, low token frequency for obsolescence. Himmelmann (2004: 37) draws a distinction between productivity in grammaticalization, which involves increase in the applicability of pattern, and decrease of productivity in lexicalization, on the grounds that “a given expression is no longer ‘freshly’ assembled from its constituent parts”. This statement concerns specific constructions like holy day ‘holy day’ > holiday that are already part of the repertoire of language users. However, if we think of the development of new contentful word-formation schemas such as compounds in -maker like homemaker, dressmaker (a subschema of OBJECT-VERB-er word-formation), then it becomes clear that at the level of the (sub)schema there is increase in productivity in contentful as well as in procedural constructionalization. Part of a speaker of English’s knowledge is that -maker can be used to form a compound with any N referring to an entity that can be made. Schematicity is a property of categorization that crucially involves abstraction. A schema is a taxonomic generalization of categories, whether linguistic or



not. Kemmer (2003: 78) says of schemas that they “are essentially routinized, or cognitively entrenched, patterns of experience”. In Traugott & Trousdale’s (2013) view, linguistic schemas are also abstractions across sets of constructions that are (unconsciously) perceived by language-users to be closely related to each other in the constructional network. Like productivity, schematicity is a gradient concept, and degrees of schematicity pertain to levels of generality or specificity and the extent to which parts of the network are rich in detail (Langacker 2009). For example, in the domain of contentful expressions, the abstract schema X-DOM in Middle English around 1200 sanctioned smaller subschemas or clusters of related contentful items.7 These clusters may be linked according to whether X is an adjective (wisdom French chanterai. Here not only the meaning but also the morphophonology of the parts has been lost. This type of structural loss of compositionality is the topic of extensive work in the literature on lexicalization and grammaticalization concerning various types of fusion, from coalescence as a unit (univerbation) to morphophonological fusion and loss. Compositionality is a matter of degree; Langacker (1987: 297) illustrates degrees of compositionality from relatively transparent swimmer to less transparent screwdriver and opaque drawer (as in bottom drawer). Sometimes, however, there may be increase in formal analyzability; this tends to be highly idiosyncratic and is associated with folk etymology, e.g. reinterpretation of asparagus, a borrowing from Latin, as sparrow-grass, of carriole ‘covered light cart’, a borrowing from French, as carry-all and of OE brydguma ‘bride + man’ > bridegroom (even if groom is no longer accessible or appropriate as ‘attendant’, it is still analyzable) (Hock & Joseph 2009: 168–171).



A less frequently discussed, but also very important, type of reduction is obsolescence. As will be illustrated below particularly in Section 3.2 on the rise and loss of X-RÆDEN, this may be loss of members of a schema or loss of the schema itself. 2.3 Prior work on lexicalization There have been several approaches to changes undergone by lexical/contentful items. Some highlight meaning change as a cognitive phenomenon (e.g. Blank 1997), some correlations with cultural change (e.g. Wierzbicka 2006). Recently, considerable theoretical attention has been paid to “lexicalization”. This term has been used in a number of ways, but studies have largely been from the perspective of form rather than of meaning (see Brinton & Traugott 2005, Lightfoot 2011). In the latter part of the twentieth century, lexicalization was conceptualized primarily as a counterexample to grammaticalization (e.g. Ramat 1992, Van der Auwera 2002). In this work, grammatical words and derivational morphemes are said to be “up-graded” to more lexical, contentful uses, in contrast to the “downgrading” of lexical to grammatical items associated with grammaticalization (see Lehmann 1995 on grammaticalization as reduction). Most examples are wordformations such as conversion (e.g. up used as a verb) and clippings (e.g. derivational -ism used as a noun) and have since been argued not to be counterexamples to grammaticalization (Lehmann 2004, Norde 2009). Focusing on a broad spectrum of lexical changes, Brinton & Traugott (2005) conceptualize lexicalization as the development of new contentful expressions via processes of reduction (e.g. OE gar leac ‘spear leek’ > garlic, hlaf weard ‘loaf guardian’ > lord). They show that such reduction is gradual and has several of the characteristics associated with grammaticalization as reduction. Many of the changes are seen to be idiosyncratic (see Himmelmann’s 2004 proposal cited above that lexicalization does not involve patterns), but Brinton & Traugott also propose that lexicalization includes the development of word-formation patterns, such as the (now obsolete) development of adjectives from a noun + lic ‘like’ (ultimately /mən/ when it was used as an affix). 5.2 Expansion and reduction The examples in Sections 3–4 show that contentful constructionalization is a complex process in which expansion and reduction are intertwined at the level of both schemas and individual construction-types. In word-formation, the initial stage is one of fixing of a phrase as a compound. For an individual phrase this involves reduction of syntactic freedom (word order



variation and case relations between N1 and N2 are reduced, cf. monnes cynn ‘man’s kin’ and moncynn ‘mankind’) and there is some referential narrowing. At the same time the development of a new compound expands the inventory of compounds. Similarly, the development of a snowclone involves not only fixing of an expression but also expansion of the inventory of idiomatic schemas. The subsequent history of a schema may be one of continued expansion, with occasional obsolescence of individual specific members. This is exemplified by X-HOOD. Even though some specific expressions obsolesced, e.g. dark-hede ‘darkhood’, cyne-had ‘kinghood’, in several cases -HOOD came in ME to be preferred over other affixoids and affixes that also meant ‘status, condition’ such as -SCIP ‘-ship’, -RÆDEN and even -DOM. For example, brother-hood replaced OE broþorscipe and broþor-ræden, both of which meant ‘brotherhood’. Overall the schema expanded with respect to the number of type-constructions and became relatively productive. By contrast, in the case of Xs-MAN the schema became relatively unproductive in the EModE period, but many of its members continue to be used. Alternatively, a schema may obsolesce and its members may be lost, as in the case of X-RÆDEN. Individual members of a schema are always subject to morphophonological reduction, but especially so when the schema sanctioning them obsolesces and comes to be rarely encountered, as did X-RÆDEN. Such reduction results in decreased morphological and semantic compositionality. For example, “linking s” appears to have no meaning in Xs-MAN formations, and the habitual activity relationship between craft and man in craftsman is a function of the construction, not of its parts. As pointed out in Section 2.3, the fixing of a phrase at the compounding stage and morphophonological reduction have been the focus of work on lexicalization understood as univerbation to date. This kind of reduction is change in the sequential syntagmatic relations between morphological units and the segmental relations between phonological units. A central argument in the present paper has been that a constructional account of the development of contentful constructions needs to distinguish the development of individual, specific constructions from that of (partial) schemas. On this view there are: i. ii.

two types of expansion: a. the development of schemas b. increase in productivity two types of reduction: a. early fixing and narrowing of meaning, and later coalescence and morphophonological reduction b. possible obsolescence of a schema or of elements within it.



Only (iia) is the subject matter of earlier work on lexicalization. Therefore the subject matter of traditional views of lexicalization is a small subset of a diachronic constructionalist analysis. The development of (partial) schemas is a case of increase in schematicity that results in increased type-productivity, at least over a short period of time. Initially a few phrases or clauses are used in such a way that speakers and hearers construe them as units with associated meanings. At this point they are still analyzable enough that one element may be taken as the exponent of a template with a slot. The result is threefold: i. the subsystem of the inventory of constructions (the “constructicon”) is expanded ii. in the case of word-formation, the number of bases sanctioned by X is expanded iii. in the case of snowclones, the number of clausal structures that can be used formulaically is expanded If we consider Himmelmann’s (2004) expansion types (syntagmatic, host-class and semantic-pragmatic), we find that host-class expansion is especially well represented by the changes discussed in Section 3. Expansion of the bases sanctioned by the variable in an affixoidal schema is a type of host-class expansion. In the case of word-formation, the host-class is syntactically local, being the base. Semantically, host-classes are usually closely connected in the network. For example, compounds in |HOOD typically have human bases, those in |RÆDEN are associated with the judicial sphere or with particular social relations, those in |MAN with activities and skills in which people engage. Expansion of base types, such as the expansion in ME of bases of the affixoid -HOOD from N to A is a limited kind of formal expansion. Some semantic-pragmatic expansion is seen in the metonymic extension of -HOOD to collectivity (priests tended to live in communities, so priesthood ‘status of being a priest’ can be considered to be metonymically extended to a collectivity of priests; see Dalton-Puffer 1996: 79–80). Likewise, we find extension of ME neighborhode ‘mutual concern, collectivity of neighbors’ in EModE to ‘district with specific characteristics’. 6. Major similarities and differences between contentful and procedural constructionalization The discussion of the rise of contentful constructions partially confirms and also extends earlier arguments that, although they have different outputs, lexicalization and grammaticalization result from many similar processes of change, among



them coalescence and fusion (see Brinton & Traugott 2005, Lightfoot 2011). Furthermore, the expansion involved in the development of word-formation and snowclone schemas takes place gradually. So does the reduction involved in the fixing and narrowing of meaning, in coalescence and in morphophonological loss. But there are also significant differences. One is that contentful constructionalization typically involves only minimal local expansion. For example, in the case of word-formation, syntactic expansion has for the most part been limited to extension of bases to more syntactic categories, e.g. from solely nominal bases to both nominal and adjectival bases. However, a recent phenomenon characteristic of much word-formation is the expansion to phrasal bases, cf. god-manhood, single-parenthood, wife and motherhood, all attested in BNC (Trips 2009: 78, 79, 119). Use of procedural constructions may, however, expand to syntactic clauseconstructions, cf. expansion of BE going to ‘future’ to raising constructions in the eighteenth century, and of the prepositions beside(s) meaning ‘in addition to the fact that’ to their use with complementizers for a limited time in EModE, as in besides that he left, he … (Rissanen 2004). While snowclones may unify with a variety of syntactic constructions such as the Question construction (Is green the new black?), this is not expansion since these possibilities pre-exist the freezing as a snowclone, and the question form is not part of the snowclone. Instead, the expression asks a question about and mentions a snowclone. A third difference is that in contentful constructionalization bleaching is rather limited. Less significant is the further difference that after constructionalization, the expansion of a word-formation schema may often be short-lived. While not all cases of procedural constructionalization are long-lived (e.g. the recent development of the all-quotative and other examples of short-lived changes discussed in Buchstaller et al. 2010), for the most part they tend to persist for several centuries. Thus, while expansion is a property of both contentful and procedural constructionalization, it appears that the kinds of expansion of contentful constructions may be more limited than is the case with procedural constructionalization. This is perhaps to be expected given the largely referential nature of the former, as compared to the indexical and combinatorial nature of the latter. 7. Conclusion To summarize, the study of contentful constructionalization goes far beyond what is traditionally the subject of “lexical change” and especially “lexicalization”. A constructional perspective on lexical change highlights changes in both form and meaning, the outcome of which is a contentful construction. It likewise highlights the role of specific constructions in the formation of schemas, and in



their obsolescence. As Traugott & Trousdale (2013) emphasize, it allows a patternbased view on changes undergone by contentful constructions, as opposed to what Hüning & Booij (forthcoming) aptly call the “element based view” found in much prior work. Furthermore, it allows integration of contentful and procedural material on a gradient in which some partial schemas involve both kinds of material, notably word-formation schemas with affixes. Just as there are two kinds of expansion (the development of abstract schemas and of specific type-constructions sanctioned by the schemas), there are two kinds of reduction: univerbation of specific constructions and obsolescence of schemas or of specific constructions. Reduction is entwined with expansion. A key enabling factor in the rise of word-formation schemas is univerbation when a phrase is conventionalized as a compound. This is a constructionalization since it involves change, if often only slight, in meaning as well as in form. Later morphophonological reductions are constructional changes if they pertain to meaning or form only. Both types of reduction affect specific constructions and conform to Trousdale’s (2008a, b) view of “lexical constructionalization” as decrease in formal and semantic compositionality. Likewise, instances of obsolescence of schemas and their members conform to Trousdale’s view of decrease in schematicity and productivity. These reductions are, however, only part of the picture of the development of contentful constructions. Such a development must also consider the creation of new word-formation patterns. When these are taken into account, then it becomes clear that there may be increase in schematicity and productivity in the development of contentful constructions. The domain of contentful constructionalization extends far beyond the few cases discussed here. Our focus has been on the development of some schemas out of phrases and clauses. Other word-formations arise from speakers analyzing an ending (often of a borrowing) and developing a template with a variable out of it. An example is the borrowing during ME of French -ite/ity and -ment to form abstract nominals, or of -ize and -ify to form verbs with English as well as borrowed bases. While word-formations have been studied from a historical perspective, there has been less attention to the development of so-called extra-grammatical formations, such as blends (fantabulous), clippings (flu, ism) and acronyms (AIDS, SIDS). (For a detailed synchronic account see Mattiello 2013.) Most of these are relatively idiosyncratic and schemas are unlikely to emerge. Whatever the data investigated, a constructionalist approach demands that attention be paid to both form and meaning. From a historical perspective, the focus is not only on the creation of new constructions, nor only on the modification of component parts of existing constructions, but also on the changing network in which both new and reconfigured constructions are linked.



Notes * Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for comments, and particularly to Geert Booij and Muriel Norde for discussion of several of the issues raised here. This paper draws on parts of Traugott & Trousdale (2013). 1. The following abbreviations are used for approximate dates of periods in the history of English: EModE: Early Modern English (c. 1500–1700), ME: Middle English (c. 1150–1500), OE: Old English (c. 650–1150), PDE: Present Day English (c. 1970–present). 2. In using the term “procedural”, we follow Bybee (2002), who proposes that knowledge of grammar is procedural knowledge, i.e. knowledge of abstract meanings that cue linguistic relations and perspectives. The term “procedural” was originally suggested by Blakemore (1987). We adopt it without intending any theoretical connection with Relevance Theory. 3. See http://thediagram.com/6_3/leisurearts.html. 4. By convention, and for convenience and brevity, constructions are named by reference to form and not meaning. 5. Booij (2010) presents an alternative view in which affixes such as -ing are not constructions. 6. While certain verbs in OE displayed some formal and functional properties similar to the present-day modals of English, there is little evidence of the modals functioning as a (sub)category or schema in OE. 7. Block capitals are used to abstract away from morphological and spelling variants. 8. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for introducing us to Hüning & Booij (forthcoming). 9. While this kind of Germanic word-formation obsolesced in OE, a new one associated with variable stress was adopted in later ME with borrowed words, e.g. democrat, democratic, democracy, but it has not been extended to native words. 10. Our main concern is with the development in OE and ME of affixoidal schemas, hence the formalism X-HOOD with a hyphen, although in PDE the schema is X.hood, if a distinction between affixoid and affix is made. In the cases where affixoidal word-formation patterns came to be reinterpreted as affixal ones, this occurred later, primarily in EModE. 11. The hyphen in this example appears in the edition of the text and should not be taken as our morphological analysis. 12. The term “snowclone”, coined by Glen Whitman, originated in a joke recalling the debate about the number of terms for snow in Eskimo that Pullum had written about earlier. Pullum (2004) accepted the term and cited several types of snowclone. A diagrammatic representation of many of the X BE the new Y pairings identified by the year 2005 can be found at http://thediagram.com/6_3/leisurearts.html (accessed March 2nd 2012). O’Connor (2007) is a more recent informal snowclones database. 13. Accessed October 10th, 2013. 14. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-black_art; New York Times, Nov 30th, 2012.



15. See http://thediagram.com/6_3/leisurearts.html (accessed March 2nd, 2012).

Databases and dictionaries BNC British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk. COCA Th e Corpus of Contemporary American English. 1990–2012. Compiled by Mark Davies. Brigham Young University. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. DOEC Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2011. Original release 1981 compiled by Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Sharon Butler & Antonette diPaolo Healey. Release 2009 compiled by Antonette diPaolo Healey, Joan Holland, Ian McDougall & David McDougall, with Xin Xiang. University of Toronto. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/ CoRD/corpora/DOEC/index.html. MED The Middle English Dictionary. 1956–2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med. Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oed.com. OED

References Baayen, R. Harald & Antoinette Renouf. 1996. Chronicling The Times: Productive Lexical Innovations in an English Newspaper. Language 72:1.69–96. DOI: 10.2307/416794 Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cal.8 Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea, eds. Forthcoming. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110211757 Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Blank, Andreas. 1997. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI: 10.1515/9783110931600 Boas, Hans C. 2008. Resolving Form-Meaning Discrepancies. Constructional Reorganization ed. by Jaako Leino, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cal.5.02boa Boas, Hans C. & Ivan A. Sag, eds. 2012. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and Derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. Morphology and Its Demarcations ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Franz Rainer, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in Construction Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar ed. by Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale, 255–273. New York: Oxford University Press.


280 Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale Brinton, Laurel. 2008. “Where Grammar and Lexis Meet”: Composite Predicates in English. Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization ed. by Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso, in collaboration with Teresa Fanego, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511615962 Buchstaller, Isabelle, John R. Rickford, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Thomas Wasow & Arnold Zwicky. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of a Short-Lived Innovation: Tracing the Development of Quotative All across Spoken and Internet Newsgroup Data. Language Variation and Change 22:2.191–219. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394510000098 Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Sequentiality as the Basis of Constituent Structure. The Evolution of Language Out of Pre-Language ed. by T. Givón & Bertram F. Malle, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526 Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22.183–209. DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2011.008 Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpusbased Study of Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110822113 Denison, David & Alison Cort. 2010. Better as a Verb. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, 349– 383. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110226102.4.349 Dietz, Klaus. 2007. Denominale Abstraktbildungen des Altengischen: Die Wortbildung der Abstrakta auf -dom, -had, -lac, -ræden, -sceaft, -stæf und -wist und ihrer Entsprechungen im Althochdeutschen und im Altnordischen. Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch ed. by Hans Fix, 97–172. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. DOI: 10.1075/nss.23.04die Fried, Mirjam. 2007. Constructing Grammatical Meaning: Isomorphism and Polysemy in Czech. Studies in Language 31.721–764. DOI: 10.1075/sl.31.4.02fri Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Construction Grammar as a Tool for Diachronic Analysis. Constructions and Frames 1.262–291. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Typological Changes in the Lexicon: Analytic Tendencies in English Noun Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110238211 Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cal.7 Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9781139004206 Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal? What Makes Grammaticalization?: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components ed. by Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



Hock, Hans Henrich & Brian D. Joseph. 2009. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214307 Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hüning, Matthias & Geert Booij. Forthcoming. From Compounding to Derivation: The Rise of Derivational Affixes through “Constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1992. Semantics and Vocabulary. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Volume I ed. by Richard M. Hogg, 290–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.006 Kastovsky, Dieter. 2006. Vocabulary. A History of the English Language ed. by Richard Hogg & David Denison, 199–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ CBO9780511791154.005 Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language 75:1.1–34. DOI: 10.2307/417472 Kemmer, Suzanne. 2003. Schemas and Lexical Blends. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John R. Taylor, 69–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Knappe, Gabriele. 2012. Idioms and Fixed Expressions. English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, Volume I ed. by Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton, 177–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110820980 Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975 [1965]. The Evolution of Grammatical Categories. Esquisses linguistiques, Volume II ed. by Jerzy Kuryłowicz, 38–54. Munich: Fink. (= Diogenes 51.55–71) Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110214369 Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Theory and Method in Grammaticalization. Grammatikalisierung, special issue of Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik ed. by Gabriele Diewald, 32.152– 187. Lightfoot, Douglas. 2011. Grammaticalization and Lexicalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., 438–449. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation: A Synchronic–Diachronic Approach. Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Mattiello, Elisa. 2013. Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives and Related Phenomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110295399 Narrog, Heiko & Bernd Heine, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/ac prof:oso/9780199207923.001.0001 Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70:3.491–538. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1994.0007 O’Connor, Edward. 2007. The Snowclones Database. Available at http://edward.oconnor. cx/2007/07/snowclones-database


282 Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Graeme Trousdale Partee, Barbara. 1984. Compositionality. Varieties of Formal Semantics ed. by Fred Landman & Frank Veltman, 281–312. Dordrecht: Foris. Plag, Ingo. 2006. Productivity. The Handbook of English Linguistics ed. by Bas Aarts & April McMahon, 537–556. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470753002.ch23 Pullum, Geoffrey. 2003. Phrases for Lazy Writers in Kit Form. Language Log. Available at http:// http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000061.html Pullum, Geoffrey. 2004. Snowclones: Lexicographical Dating to the Second. Language Log. Available at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.html Ramat, Paolo. 1992. Thoughts on Degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:3.549–560. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1992.30.3.549 Rissanen, Matti. 2004. Grammaticalisation from Side to Side: On the Development of beside (s). Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English ed. by Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair, 151–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/scl.13.08ris Roberts, Ian. 2010. Grammaticalization, the Clausal Hierarchy and Semantic Bleaching. Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale, 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.90.05rob Szczepaniak, Renata. 2009. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199679898.001.0001 Trips, Carola. 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI: 10.1515/9783484971318 Trousdale, Graeme. 2008a. Constructions in Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: Evidence from the History of a Composite Predicate Construction in English. Constructional Approaches to English Grammar ed. by Graeme Trousdale & Nikolas Gisborne, 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trousdale, Graeme. 2008b. A Constructional Approach to Lexicalization Processes in the History of English: Evidence from Possessive Constructions. Word Structure 1.156–177. DOI: 10.3366/E1750124508000202 Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Gradualness in Language Change: A Constructional Perspective. Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli, 27–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/slcs.133.02tro Van der Auwera, Johan. 2002. More Thoughts on Degrammaticalization. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 19–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/tsl.49.04auw Wischer, Ilse. 2011. Grammaticalization and Word Formation. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., 356–364. Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Zwicky, Arnold. 2006. Snowclone Mountain? Language Log. Available at http://itre.cis.upenn. edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002924.html



Authors’ addresses Elizabeth Closs Traugott Margaret Jacks Hall Building 460, Room 127 Stanford University Stanford CA 94305–2150 USA [email protected]

Graeme Trousdale Linguistics and English Language School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences University of Edinburgh Dugald Stewart Building 3 Charles Street Edinburgh, UK EH8 9AD [email protected]
