Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T14:32:40.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Context in Historical Linguistics

from Part I - Language in Context: A Sociohistorical Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2023

By
Elizabeth Traugott
Edited by
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Jesús Romero-Trillo
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Get access

Summary

Historical linguists investigate those contexts that are considered to be most relevant to language change, given the theoretical approach adopted and the phenomena to be investigated. The topic of this chapter is usage-based perspectives on language-internal change, especially as conceptualized in the frameworks of research on grammaticalization, semantic-pragmatic change, and diachronic construction grammar. Contexts may be immediate, local “co-texts” or wider linguistic discourse contexts. Contexts tend to be wide and discursive as change begins to occur and local after it has occurred. I discuss the roles in enabling change of ambiguity, of pragmatic inferencing, and of “assemblies of discursive uses” such as have been proposed in work on constructionalization. With respect to contexts for “actualization,” the step-by-step language-internal spread (or loss) of a change that has occurred, focus is on host-class expansion and on the often analogy-driven changes across contexts, especially as revealed in corpus work.

Keywords

ActualizationAmbiguityAnalogyChangeDiachronic Construction GrammarGrammaticalizationPolysemyPragmatic inferences
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context , pp. 49 - 70
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

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

Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., and Cornillie, B., eds. (2006). Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., and Gildea, S. eds. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., Ke, J., Christiansen, M. H., Larsen-Freeman, D., Croft, W., Schoenemann, T., and Five Graces Group (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. [1958] (1971). Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics (trans. M. E. Meek) (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. ( 1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bréal, M. [1900] (2018). Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning (trans. Mrs. Henry Cust). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. ( 2019). Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Scott, K., Clark, B., and Carston, R. (eds.), Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation (pp. 150–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (2003). Reconstruction, typology, and reality. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 234–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P., and Olofsson, J., eds. (2018). Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining Language Change. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, H., Davidse, K., and Vandelanotte, L. (2010). Introduction. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 1–26). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N., and Wichmann, A. ( 2010). Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for use as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language, 34, 36–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2012). The course of actualization. Language, 88(4), 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. (2013). Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., and Verstraete, J.-C. (2006). Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 365–392.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2002). A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions SV1–9.Google Scholar
Diewald, G., and Smirnova, E. (2012). “Paradigmatic integration”: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario. In Davidse, K., Breban, T., Brems, L., and Mortelmans, T. (eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections (pp. 111–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. (2018). Towards a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena: The case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance construction. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. ( 2012). Contexts in interaction: Relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. B. (eds.), What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., and Schumacher, P. B., eds. (2012). What Is a Context? Linguistic Approaches and Challenges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. M., Dirven, R. Ziemke, T., and Bernárdez, E., eds. (2008). Body, Language and Mind, Vol. II: Sociocultural Situatedness. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., and Cuyckens, H., eds. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. [1979] (2018). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. [1957] (1989). Logic and conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Györi, G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles: A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard (2008). Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues: A Study with Special Reference to the French Phasal Adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hansen, M.-B. Mosegaard, and Visconti, J. eds. (2009). Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics. Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A. (2013). Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica, 47, 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hata, K. (2016). On the importance of the multimodal approach to discourse markers: A pragmatic view. International Review of Pragmatics, 8(1), 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., and Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, J. M., and Conde-Silvestre, J. C., eds. (2015). The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G. eds. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. I, pp. 17–35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., and Traugott, E. C. [1993] (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications; Georgetown University Round Table’ 84 (pp. 11–42). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A., and Jucker, A. H. ( 1995). The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Development in the History of English (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., and Barlow, M. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. vii–xxviii). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J., [1965] (1975). The evolution of grammatical categories. In Kuryłowicz, Jerzy, Esquisses linguistiques (Vol. II, pp. 38–54). Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H., and Rhee, S. (2019). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2006). Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, A., Canakis, C., and Cornillie, B. (eds.), Subjectification: Various Paths to Subjectivity (pp. 17–40). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (2006). Phonology and morphology. In Hogg, R., and Denison, D., (eds.), A History of the English Language (pp. 43–108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. [1995] (2015). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, U. (2010). Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindblom, J. and Ziemke, T. (2002). Social situatedness: Vygotsky and beyond. Adaptive Behavior, 11(2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. (2010). Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 127–163). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A. [1912] (1958). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et linguistique générale (pp. 130–148). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Milroy, J., and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 339–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H., and Heine, B., eds. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (2019). Children and adults as language learners: Rules, variation, and maturational change. Topics in Cognitive Science: Topic 2017 Rumelhart Prize Issue honoring Lila Gleitman. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12416 (accessed January 26, 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, S. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 401–412). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2008). The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norén, K., and Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and Traugott, E. C. (1997). Scope and the development of epistemic modality. English Language and Linguistics, 1(2), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2016). Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [BE Ving] became the “progressive.” English Language and Linguistics, 20(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2019). How constructions are born: The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Busse, B. and Möhlig-Falke, R. (eds.), Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept (pp. 157–192). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). Why Cognitive Linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., and Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. [1986] (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–71). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In Kytö, M. (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2020). The development of “digressive” discourse–topic shift markers in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Trousdale, T. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van linden, A. (2012). Modal Adjectives: English Deontic and Evaluative Constructions in Diachrony and Synchrony. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walkden, G. 2019. The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 52, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E., and Traugott, E. C. ( 2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 168–211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×