Book contents
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Word Grammar in Its Intellectual Contexts
- 2 Raising in Phonology
- 3 Grammar Change in the Network
- 4 Word Formation Change in Word Grammar
- 5 The Metaphorical Bases of Constituency and Dependency
- 6 From Social Psychology to Cognitive Sociolinguistics
- 7 Hudson on Heads
- 8 Ordinary French Houses
- 9 Dependency Grammar and Subordination
- 10 Verb Phrases as Attributive Nominal Modifiers
- 11 Testing the Predictions of Word Grammar, the Minimalist Programme and the Matrix Language Frame Model for German/English Mixed Determiner–Noun Constructions
- 12 Factors Influencing Dependency Distance
- Index
- References
4 - Word Formation Change in Word Grammar
Two Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 December 2024
Book contents
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Word Grammar in Its Intellectual Contexts
- 2 Raising in Phonology
- 3 Grammar Change in the Network
- 4 Word Formation Change in Word Grammar
- 5 The Metaphorical Bases of Constituency and Dependency
- 6 From Social Psychology to Cognitive Sociolinguistics
- 7 Hudson on Heads
- 8 Ordinary French Houses
- 9 Dependency Grammar and Subordination
- 10 Verb Phrases as Attributive Nominal Modifiers
- 11 Testing the Predictions of Word Grammar, the Minimalist Programme and the Matrix Language Frame Model for German/English Mixed Determiner–Noun Constructions
- 12 Factors Influencing Dependency Distance
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter provides a further contribution to work on Word Grammar and language change. It explores particular developments in English derivational morphology in order to look in more detail at what kinds of changes occur in the language network over time. This relates to discussions in other cognitive linguistic theories about diachronic variation in the language network, especially in terms of changes to nodes and changes to links between nodes. The main claims that are made are as follows: (i) much change in the network is very local and involves micro-steps, but (ii) some changes can occur which involve more significant restructuring, for instance where language users have reanalysed a part of a word as a word in itself. Since the central goal of Word Grammar is to understand the grammar of words, such changes can be revealing in terms of the theoretical underpinnings of the framework.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency , pp. 104 - 125Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Creider, C. and Hudson, R. (1999). Inflectional morphology in Word Grammar. Lingua, 107, 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K. and Haumann, D. (2020). From engl-isc to whatever-ish: a corpus-based investigation of ish-derivation in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics, 24, 801–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2010). The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2011). Constructions, Word Grammar and grammaticalisation. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 155–82.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2017). Defaulting to the new Romance synthetic future. In Gisborne, N. and Hippesley, A. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 151–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. (2018). Word Grammar morphology. In Audring, J. and Mancini, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 327–45.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. and Hudson, R. (2010). Idioms and exceptionality. Paper presented at the LAGB Annual Meeting 2010, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Coussé, E., Andersson, P. and Olofsson, J. (eds.), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (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. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C.. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1997). The rise of auxiliary do: Verb-non-raising or category strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2007). Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2010). An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). The ending ‘-ster’. Modern Language Review, 22(2), 129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1992). Semantics and vocabulary. In Hogg, R., ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 1. The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.290–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzmack, S. (2007). Ish: a new case of anti-grammaticalization? Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Anaheim.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. (2013). An old problem in etymology revisited: The origin of Germanic nouns with the suffix -ster. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik, 70, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. and Smirnova, E. (eds.), (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. (1983). English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar