Productivity; Copulas; Construction grammar; Old English; Middle English; Diachrony; Analogy; Grammaticalization
Abstract :
[en] This article provides an analysis — within the framework of Radical Construction Grammar — of how BECOME developed into a copula ‘become’ out of an original sense ‘arrive’, and WAX, originally ‘grow’, also came to be used as a copula ‘become’. Importantly, it explains why these verbs successfully became fully productive copulas in a very short period of time. It is argued that this happened after a pre-copular stage had reached a cognitive threshold value. The occurrence of this threshold is related to the fact that the copular constructions featuring BECOME and WAX were not the end result of a single diachronic lineage of constructions (i.e. one construction developed out of another one, one at a time). Instead, the copularization of these verbs was the result of an interaction between lineages of constructions, belonging to two groups: (i) constructions involving BECOME or WAX, which gradually changed and interacted with each other; (ii) constructions involving already existing copulas, notably WEORÐAN ‘become’, which provided a generally productive analog upon which the newly emerging copulas could graft. Generally, the article calls attention to the importance of multiple source constructions and thresholds in understanding grammaticalization processes and productivity.
Research Center/Unit :
FEST
Disciplines :
Languages & linguistics
Author, co-author :
Petré, Peter ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des langues et littératures modernes > Département des langues et littératures modernes
Language :
English
Title :
General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Arngart, Olof (ed.). 1968. The Middle English Genesis and Exodus (Lund Studies in English 36). Lund: Gleerup.
Arnold, Ivor. 1938. Le Roman de Brut. Paris: SATF.
Baayen, Harald R. 1992. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181-208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Baayen, Harald R. & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801-843.
Baròdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic, German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology 4, 101-130. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Baròdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic (Constructional Approaches to Language 8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
BT: Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller. 1898 & 1921 (supplement). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 243), 49-68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119. 1728-1755.
DOE: Dictionary of Old English. A-G on CD-ROM. 2008. Toronto: PIMS.
DOEC: Dictionary of Old English Corpus. http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/pub/ corpus.html [accessed 19 January 2009].
Fleischer, Nicholas. 2006. The origin of passive get. English Language and Linguistics 10(2). 225-252.
Geeraerts, Dirk & Stefan Grondelaers. 1995. Looking back at anger. Cultural traditions and metaphorical patterns. In John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury (eds.), Language and the Construal of the World, 153-179. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gevaert, Caroline. 2007. The History of ANGER: The Lexical Field of ANGER from Old to Early Modern English. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation. http:// hdl.handle.net/1979/893 [accessed 28 March 2010].
Goldberg, Adele & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532-568. (Pubitemid 41424797)
HC: Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic Part 2nd edition. 1999. Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English). Helsinki: Department of English.
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ICAMET 2004: Innsbruck Middle English Prose Corpus (sampler). http://anglistik1.uibk.ac.at/ahp/projects//icamet/prose-corpus/index.html [accessed 19 January 2009].
Joseph, Brian D. 1992. Diachronic explanation: putting speakers back into the picture. In Garry W. Davis & Gregory K. Iverson (eds.), Explanation in Historical Linguistics, 123-144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
KALIKorpus: Kali-Korpus, Leibniz Universität Hannover. http://www.kali.uni-hannover.de/ [accessed 2 May 2011].
LAEME 2.1: Margaret Laing & Roger Lass. 2008. A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English, 1150-1325. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme1/laeme1.html [accessed 2 May 2011].
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-lexical Semantics Interface. Boston: MIT Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Changes and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
MEC: Middle English Compendium. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/ [accessed 19 January 2009].
MED: Middle English Dictionary. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ [accessed 2 May 2011].
MEMT. 2005. Middle English Medical Texts. Taavitsainen Irma, Päivi Pahta and Martti Mäkinen (eds.). CD-ROM. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Petré, Peter. 2010a. On the Interaction between Constructional & Lexical Change: Copular, Passive and related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation. https://lirias. kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/270027 [accessed 2 May 2011].
Petré, Peter. 2010b. The functions of weoròan and its loss in the past tense in Old and Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 14:3. 457-484.
Petré, Peter & Hubert Cuyckens. 2008. The Old English copula weoròan and its replacement in Middle English. In Maurizzio Gotti, Marina Dossena & Richard Dury (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006. Volume I Historical syntax and morphology. Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21-25 August 2006 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 295), 24-48. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Petré, Peter & Hubert Cuyckens. 2009. Constructional change in Old and Middle English Copular Constructions and its impact on the lexicon. Folia Linguistica Historica 30. 311-365.
PPCME2: Anthony Kroch & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2nd edition. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ hist-corpora/ PPCME2-RELEASE-2/ [accessed 31 March 2009].
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the Categorization of the Lexicon (Functional Grammar Series 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radden, Günter. 1991. The Cognitive Approach to Natural Language (L.A.U.D. Papers, Series A 300). Duisburg: L.A.U.D.
Radden, Günter. 1996. Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In Eugene H. Casad (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 6), 423-458. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Alex Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and Language Change: Selected Papers from the Workshop on Constructions and Language Change, XVII International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 194), 23-46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2010a. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2010b. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.). 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 19-44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wulfila Project. http://www.wulfila.be [accessed 19 January 2009].
YCOE: Ann Taylor, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Frank Beths. 2003. The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.