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-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T15:00:33.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Constructions and Lectal Variation

from Part V - Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Timothy Colleman  and
Dirk Noël
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

It follows from the usage-based view of language adopted in most strands of Construction Grammar that the constructicons of speakers of what is considered to be one and the same language will differ along social, or ‘lectal’, lines. This chapter explains the inherent theoretical importance of lectal variation for Construction Grammar and surveys existing construction-based work on synchronic language variation. Four major research strands are discussed: (i) studies aimed at the analysis of the form and/or meaning poles of constructions from specific lects; (ii) comparisons of the properties of a given construction or a set of related constructions across different lects; (iii) quantitative studies of grammatical alternations which include lectal variables in their research design; and (iv) studies of social variables involved in the propagation of constructional changes through communities of speakers. The chapter also identifies a number of challenges and open questions.

Keywords

Construction Grammarlanguage variationlectal variationusage-based grammarCognitive Sociolinguisticsdialectsociolect
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 497 - 518
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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

Bender, E. M. (2007). Socially meaningful syntactic variation in sign-based grammar. English Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 347–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, M. (2018). Towards a constructional analysis of the progressive aspect in Texas German. In Boas, H. C. & Höder, S., eds., Constructions in Contact: Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, T. & Hoffmann, T. (2020). The way construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide, 41(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell‐Kibler, K. (2011). The sociolinguistic variant as a carrier of social meaning. Language Variation and Change, 22(3), 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2010). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. & Noël, D. (2012). The Dutch evidential NCI: A case of constructional attrition. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S., eds., New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015a). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015b). Language in the mind and in the community. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D., & Cuyckens, H., eds., Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 221–235.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2020). Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemish varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in Cognitive Linguistics. In de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. Ruiz & Cervel, S. Peña, eds., Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interactions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In Tabakowska, E., Choinski, M., & Wiraszka, L., eds., Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat. Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and Divergence in the Dutch Lexicon. A Study of Clothing and Football Terms]. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Kristiansen, G. (2015). Variationist linguistics. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Introduction: Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y., eds., Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, J. & Röthlisberger, M. (2023). Dialectal ditransitive patterns in British English: Weighing sociolinguistic factors against language-internal constraints. In Zehentner, E., Röthlisberger, M., & Colleman, T., eds., Ditransitive Constructions in Germanic Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J., Szmrecsanyi, B., Röthlisberger, M., & Heller, B. (2018). General introduction: A comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar. Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 153–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in Mind and Society: A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2017). Historical sociolinguistics and Construction Grammar: From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In Säily, T., Nurmi, A., Palander-Collin, M., & Auer, A., eds., Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J., eds., Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, Challenges and Potential Incompatibilities. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C., eds., Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2015). Cognitive Sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2021). The Cognitive Foundation of Post-Colonial Englishes: Construction Grammar as the Cognitive Theory for the Dynamic Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18. http://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, W. (2013). Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 491–509.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W. & Siewierska, A. (2011). The status of frequency, schemas and identity in cognitive sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R. (2008). Introduction: Cognitive sociolinguistics: Rationale, methods and scope. In Kristiansen, G. & Dirven, R., eds., Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Gries, S. Th. (2009). Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide, 30(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Hoffmann, S. (2006). Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide, 27(2), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negrão, E. & Viotti, E. (2015). Elementos para a investigação da semântica do clítico SE no portugues brasileiro [Pointers for an investigation of the semantics of the clitic SE in Brazilian Portuguese]. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos, 57(1), 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. In Vergaro, C., ed., Cognitive Perspectives on Genre. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 543–575.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2019). The decline of the Deontic nci construction in Late Modern English: Towards a radically usage-based perspective on constructional attrition. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 6(1), 22–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. & Colleman, T. (2021). Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Wen, X. & Taylor, J. R., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 662–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., De Clerck, B., & Colleman, T. (2014). The emergence of non-canonical degree modifiers in non-standard varieties of Dutch: A constructionalization perspective. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Dialects, discourse and Construction Grammar. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 476–490.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language, 94(4), 867–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, A. & Hollmann, W. (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, M. & Steen, G. J., eds., Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soares da Silva, A., Afonso, S., Palú, D., & Franco, K. (2021). Null se constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics, 32(1), 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 62(4), 685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M. (2016). Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37(2), 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2002). From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yerastov, Y. (2015). A Construction Grammar analysis of the transitive be-perfect in present-day Canadian English. English Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2015). Converging Grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A. (2015). Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. In Ziem, A. & Lasch, A., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionen als soziale Konventionen und kognitive Routinen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×