Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:40:08.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammaticalisation and information structure: two perspectives on diachronic changes of notwithstanding in written American English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2016

OLE SCHÜTZLER
OLE SCHÜTZLER*
Affiliation:
University of Bamberg, English Linguistics, An der Universität 9, 96045 Bamberg, Germanyole.schuetzler@uni-bamberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article traces processes of change affecting the concessive adposition notwithstanding in written American English from the early nineteenth century to the present. Data from the Corpus of Historical American English show that, first, there is a dramatic decline in the frequency of notwithstanding. Second, while notwithstanding as a conjunction or conjunct becomes nearly obsolete, its use as an adposition increases in relative frequency. These two developments are interpreted as specialisation in ongoing grammaticalisation, whereby the range of formal alternatives is reduced within the domain of concessive adpositions more generally and among uses of notwithstanding in particular. Third, the postposition becomes the most frequent syntactic variant in the twentieth century. The strengthening of the postposition coincides with two tendencies: (i) the respective phrases are placed in non-final sentence position, and (ii) the noun phrase complements in such constructions are extremely short. In consequence, NP complements of notwithstanding are maximally de-accentuated, being very short and far removed from the focus position. Structuring information in this way is not an option for other concessive connectives, and it is argued to be one of the factors resulting in the strengthening of postpositional notwithstanding in late modern and present-day American English.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 101 - 122
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azar, Moshe. 1997. Concessive relations as argumentations. Text 17 (3), 301–16.Google Scholar
Alexander, Marc & Davies, Mark. 2015–. Hansard Corpus 1803–2005. www.hansard-corpus.org (accessed 26 August 2016).Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2009. Prepositions and postpositions. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 130–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2014. Noun phrase complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Brinton, Donna M.. 2010. The linguistic structure of Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chalker, Sylvia & Weiner, Edmund. 1994. The Oxford dictionary of English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Guohua. 2000. The grammaticalization of concessive markers in Early Modern English. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 87–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2007–. TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. http://corpus.byu.edu/time/ (accessed 23 May 2015).Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/ (accessed 13 May 2015).Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24 (4), 385–401.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. I: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4 (2), 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & König, Ekkehard. 1992. Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 30 (3), 671–97.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (3–4), 243–76.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 7–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred & Schützler, Ole. 2013. Recent change and grammaticalization. In Aarts, Bas, Leech, Geoffrey, Close, Joanne & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora, 155–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 121–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 2002. Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change – working with contemporary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 6 (1), 3–15.Google Scholar
Minugh, David. 2002. ‘Her COLTISH energy notwithstanding’: An examination of the adposition ‘notwithstanding’. In Breivik, Leiv Egil & Hasselgren, Angela (eds.), From the COLT's mouth . . . and others': Language corpora studies in honour of Anna-Brita Stenström, 213–29. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary , 3rd edn. 2006. www.oed.com (accessed 15 May 2015).Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 2002. ‘Despite’ or ‘notwithstanding’? On the development of concessive prepositions in English. In Fischer, Andreas, Tottie, Gunnel & Lehmann, Hans Martin (eds.), Text types and corpora: Studies in honour of Udo Fries, 191–203. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2002. Processing complexity and the variable use of prepositions in English. In Cuyckens, Hubert & Radden, Günter (eds.), Perspectives on prepositions, 79–100. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2014. Syntactic stability and change in nineteenth-century newspaper language. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English syntax, 311–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik & Kytö, Merja 2015. English genres in diachronic corpus linguistics. In Shaw, Philip, Erman, Britt, Melchers, Gunnel & Sundkvist, Peter (eds.), From clerks to corpora: Essays on the English language yesterday and today, 117–33. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wartburg, Walther von. 1955. Französiches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes, vol. 7. Basel: R. G. Zbinden & Co. Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 2006. English intonation: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Kerz, Elma. 2013. The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints. English Language and Linguistics 17 (1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar