Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume II
- General Preface
- Abbreviations for Corpora and Other Electronic Resources
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume II
- Part I The Textual Record
- Part II Lighthouse Works and Authors
- Part III Genre and Medium in the Record
- Part IV Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories
- 27 Quantitative Methods and the History of English
- 28 Generative Accounts of Change
- 29 Functional Accounts of Change
- 30 Grammaticalisation
- 31 Cognitive Approaches to the History of English
- 32 Construction Grammar and English Historical Linguistics
- 33 Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Language Change
- Appendix: List of Corpora and Other Electronic Resources
- Index
- References
32 - Construction Grammar and English Historical Linguistics
from Part IV - Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2025
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume II
- General Preface
- Abbreviations for Corpora and Other Electronic Resources
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume II
- Part I The Textual Record
- Part II Lighthouse Works and Authors
- Part III Genre and Medium in the Record
- Part IV Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories
- 27 Quantitative Methods and the History of English
- 28 Generative Accounts of Change
- 29 Functional Accounts of Change
- 30 Grammaticalisation
- 31 Cognitive Approaches to the History of English
- 32 Construction Grammar and English Historical Linguistics
- 33 Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Language Change
- Appendix: List of Corpora and Other Electronic Resources
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter discusses how analyses of historical developments in the English language can be informed by Construction Grammar, which models linguistic knowledge as a network of interconnected form–meaning pairs. Adopting this view of language, a growing body of constructional research addresses questions of how new form–meaning pairs come into being, how their interconnections change in the network and how the entire network develops over time. Engagement with these questions provides new perspectives on familiar phenomena, and it directs our attention to issues that have not been studied before. This chapter surveys theoretical proposals that apply notions from Construction Grammar to the study of language change, and by reviewing empirical studies of historical change from a constructional perspective across different domains in English grammar.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageDocumentation, Sources of Data and Modelling, pp. 796 - 819Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Barðdal, Jóhanna and Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar: epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In Barðdal et al. (eds.), pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte and Gildea, Spike (eds.). 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel and Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113.3: 363–382.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2011. Quotations across the generations: a multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7: 59–92.10.1515/cllt.2011.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: a diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59.4: 387–410.10.1515/zaa-2011-0408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2017. Ten Lectures on Grammar in the Mind. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004336827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark and Kim, Jong-Bok. 2019. Historical shifts with the into-causative construction in American English. Linguistics 57.1: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, Dekalo, Volodymyr and Czicza, Dániel. 2021. Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: an item-driven usage-based approach. In Hilpert, Martin, Cappelle, Bert and Depraetere, Ilse (eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–122.10.1075/cal.32.04dieCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2019. A construction of independent means: the history of the way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics 23.3: 671–699.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538.10.2307/414531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: the emergence of the into-causative. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 45–67.10.1075/cal.27.01flaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021a. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: a corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod+adv collocations. English Language and Linguistics 25.4: 743–765.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021b. From movement into action to manner of causation: changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics 59.1: 247–283.10.1515/ling-2020-0269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1973. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7.5: 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Achard, Michel and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, Culture and Mind. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013a. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013b. Die englischen Modalverben im Daumenkino: Zur dynamischen Visualisierung von Phänomenen des Sprachwandels. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 42: 67–82.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: noun-participle compounding and the upward-strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26.1: 1–36.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Change in modal meanings: another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames 8.1: 66–85.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2017. Historical sociolinguistics and construction grammar: from mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In Säily, Tanja, Nurmi, Arja, Palander-Collin, Minna and Auer, Anita (eds.), Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–237.10.1075/ahs.7.09hilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, Evie, Andersson, Peter and Olofsson, Joel (eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Second edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten Lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, Steffen. 2018. Grammar is community-specific: background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In Boas, Hans C. and Höder, Steffen (eds.), Constructions in Contact. Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–70.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2021. The Cognitive Foundation of Post-Colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108909730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Gardner, Anne-Christine. 2017. Corpus-based approaches: watching English change. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96–130.10.1017/9781316286562.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 217–230.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language 75.1: 1–33.10.2307/417472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha. 2020. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. In Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Peña Cervel, M. Sandra (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 101–159.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Third edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15.1: 1–67.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME: frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14.2: 191–220.10.1075/ijcl.14.2.03milCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 2000. System Collapse, System Rebirth: The Demonstrative Systems of English 900–1350 and the Birth of the Definite Article. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14.2: 177–202.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2010. Grammaticalization and the it-cleft construction. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–243.10.1075/tsl.90.12patCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2020. Productivity and schematicity in constructional change. In Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 142–166.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2018. Article Emergence in Old English: A Constructionalist Perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110541052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte and Smirnova, Elena (eds.). 2020. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan T.. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turney, Peter D. and Pantel, Patrick. 2010. From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37: 141–188.10.1613/jair.2934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Takuto. 2010. Development and grammaticalization of be about to: an analysis of the OED quotations. In Imahayashi, Osamu, Nakao, Yoshiyuki and Ogura, Michiko (eds.), Aspects of the History of English Language and Literature. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 353–365.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas and Siemund, Peter (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 265–281.10.1075/z.136.17wulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.