Syntactic reconstruction poses a unique set of challenges to comparative philologists, and this has led some authors to go so far as to claim it is impossible. This chapter begins by evaluating these challenges and how troubling they are for the enterprise of syntactic reconstruction. With this baseline established, the author turns to the specific attempts that have been made at reconstructing syntax, in particular with reference to Proto-Indo-European. Although some aspects of syntax were treated as early as the Neo-Grammarians, the earliest concerted efforts to treat Proto-Indo-European syntax on its own terms date to the latter half of the twentieth century. There have been several different approaches to syntactic reconstruction since then, which fall broadly into four categories: Typological reconstruction; Pattern-based approaches; Construction Grammar; and Minimalist reconstruction. This chapter argues that, while it is not the only viable methodology, Minimalist Reconstruction provides the most suitable means for the task of reconstructing relative clause syntax in Proto-Indo-European.

Grammaticalisation is the gradual historical process through which English, like all languages, generates its grammatical material. It is underpinned by separate yet interconnected mechanisms of language change which result in the continuous formal and functional modification of lexical items in specific constructions and contexts. Its ultimate origin has been identified as metaphorical extension and as context-induced reinterpretation, but fundamentally lies in the approximate and inferential nature of linguistic communication. These processes and motivations are explored here through a number of case studies from the history of English, focusing in particular on the emergence of various tense markers, quantifiers and complex prepositions.

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.

This chapter turns to labelling memes, where some images may develop into full-blown Image Macros, while others remain non-entrenched. Here, the textual component is different from both when-memes and from the typical Image Macro memes. In typical labelling memes, parts of a depicted scene are labelled with words or phrases which do not describe anything in the image, but instead collectively call up a different frame. Well-known examples discussed include the Is This a Pigeon? meme, and the Distracted Boyfriend meme (DBM), showing a man turning over to admire an attractive passing woman (dressed in red), while the woman (in blue) whose hand he’s holding looks on indignantly. This scene of a change in attention and preference – a choice for a new and attractive opportunity – gets to be applied to unrelated choices and new preferences. Labelling itself can sometimes be visual again. Overall, we stress the constructional properties of DBM – with strong argument structure-like properties – alongside the role of embodied features (emotions and attentions expressed in facial expressions and posture) and the figurative, similative meaning often arrived at compositionally.

This chapter introduces the distinction between entrenched images or Image Macros (IMs) and Non-Entrenched Images (NEIs), and focuses most of its discussion on examples involving IMs that feature the characteristic ‘Top Text’ (TT) and ‘Bottom Text’ (BT), such as the One Does Not Simply and Good Girl Gina memes (ODNS and GGG). It shows how these IM memes allow Meme Makers to categorize experiences very quickly, efficiently and (if successful) humorously, adding further examples to such categories as ‘futile undertakings that are impossible to achieve’ (ODNS) or ‘virtuous behaviour of highly considerate women’ (GGG), thanks in large part to the frames evoked visually. It also discusses aspects of the construction grammar approach to language, as applicable to these meme constructions, including specific constructional properties of GGG memes and the constructional networks they fit into.

This chapter outlines the reasons why a linguistically oriented book-length analysis of memes is a necessary step. It also previews the main theoretical tools to be used and highlights the ways in which this book differs from other books on memes. It includes a preview of the remaining chapters of the book.

The chapter summarises the study described in the book. It discusses the contribution of the study to Construction Grammar and the applications of this grammar to discourse analysis and to language teaching. The contribution of the study to Systemic Functional Grammar is then discussed, with a comparison between this study and proposals by Halliday and Matthiessen. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the study might be extended in future work.

The chapter introduces the key concepts in the book. It explains corpus lexicography and the concept of Pattern Grammar, Construction Grammar and its relation to verb argumentation, and Systemic Function Grammar. It illustrates how the three can be brought together, unifying disparate approaches to the description of English. The chapter includes notes on the websites, corpora, and conventions used in the book.

The chapter provides an introduction to the concepts of Pattern Grammar and Construction Grammar, with a discussion of their similarities and differences. Pattern Grammar refers to a notation system devised to record, in a transparent and flexible way, the behaviour of individual words, as part of corpus lexicography. It has been found that words sharing patterns can be grouped according to shared aspects of meaning. In Construction Grammar, constructions are proposed as pairings of form and meaning. Most constructions allow for variability in the words used in them, with meaning belonging to the construction rather than to the word. Thus, both approaches link form and meaning. Many observed phraseologies can be interpreted both as examples of grammar patterns and as instances of constructions. It is therefore reasonable to propose that the extensive corpus research underpinning Pattern Grammar can be used to inform an inventory of constructions.