Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:52:18.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing the system from within – a response to Hoffmann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

BERT CAPPELLE
BERT CAPPELLE*
Affiliation:
UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage, Université de Lille 3, Pont de Bois, BP 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thomas Hoffmann's article proposes a cognitively viable theoretical framework for explaining how constructions can emerge in the history of a language. The case which Hoffmann discusses is the coming into being of the comparative correlative construction of the type The smaller a car is, the easier it is to park in late Old English and early Middle English. While car sizes and parking spaces were perhaps not a matter for discussion among speakers of that time, it was for them as important as it is for us to be able to say that if any two things differ in one respect, then they also differ in another (for details on the construction's semantics, see Beck 1997; Cappelle 2011). In this particular comparative correlative construction, the first part (C1, for ‘clause 1’) is interpreted as standing in a sort of protasis relation to the apodosis-like second part (C2, for ‘clause 2’). That is, this C1C2 construction reflects, in an iconically appropriate way, the order of a hypothetical statement followed by its consequence.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 375 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (3), 229−71.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2011. The the. . .the. . . construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (1), 99−117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119, 1728–55.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard (eds.). 2008. The paradox of grammatical change: Perspectives from Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McColl Millar, Robert & Trask, Larry. 2015. Trask's Historical linguistics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar