558 research outputs found
New trends on grammaticalization and language change/ edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban, José Vicente Lozano.
No full textIncludes bibliographical references and index.Introduction: grammaticalization in the 2010s: a dialogue between the old and the new / Tine Breban and Sylvie Hancil -- Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? / Bernd Heine -- Functional similarity despite geographical distance: On the grammaticalization of German mal and Chinese yixià / Ekkehard Koenig and Jingying Li -- Analogy: Its role in language learning, categorization, and in models of language change such as grammaticalization and constructionalization / Olga Fischer -- Central Southern Guangxi as a grammaticalization area / Yang Huang and Fuxiang Wu -- Grammaticalizing connectives in English and discourse information structure / Diana M. Lewis -- The grammaticalization of interrogative pronouns into relative pronouns in South-Caucasian languages: Internal development or replica? / Ophelie Gandon -- From time to surprise: The case of será posible in Spanish / Susana Rodriguez Rosique -- C-gravitation and the grammaticalization degree of 'present progressives' in English, French, and Dutch / Naoaki Wada -- The avertive and proximative grams in Maltese using the auxiliary ghodd / Maris Camilleri -- Pragmatic uses of Nu in old Saxon and old English / Elise Louviot -- (Inter)subjectification and paradigmaticization: The case study of the final particle but / Sylvie Hancil -- The development of three classifiers into degree modifier constructions in Chinese / Yueh Hsin Kuo -- From the inside to the outside of the sentence: forming a larger discourse unit with jijitsu 'fact' in japanese / Reijirou Shibasaki -- The development of the Chinese scalar additive coordinators derived from prohibitives, a constructionist perspective / Bing Zhu and Kaoru Horie -- Cross-varietal diversity in constructional entrenchment: The final-tag construction in Irish and American English / Mitsuko Narita Izutsu and Katsunobu Izutsu.1 online resource
Lost in change: causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions/ edited by Svenja Kranich, Tine Breban.
No full textIncludes bibliographical references and index."While research on language change has formulated robust empirical generalisations about processes and motivations underlying the emergence and spread of linguistic elements, their decline and loss is less well understood. So far a systematic investigation into the processes and motivations of decline and loss in language change is lacking. This book is a first step towards remedying this state of affairs. It brings together a varied set of empirical investigations into decline and loss, spanning morphology, syntax and the lexicon, in different languages. Their authors apply diverse methodologies and represent different theoretical approaches. On the basis of this broad span of studies, authors and editors propose generalisations related to decline and loss and assess similarities and differences with processes and motivations of emergence and spread. The book aims to inspire and provide hypotheses for further studies of decline and loss. It will appeal to historical linguists and others interested in language change"--Intro -- Lost in Change -- Editorial page -- Title page -- Copyright page -- Table of contents -- Lost in Change -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Studying loss: Hypotheses and generalizations -- 2.1 Data and methods for studying loss -- 2.2 Modelling loss: Classifications and theories -- 2.3 The process of loss -- 2.4 Causes and motivations for loss -- 2.5 Potential universals -- 3. Summaries of the contributions in this volume -- References -- 1. A typological perspective on the loss of inflection -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Loss of forms -- 2.1 Convergence -- 2.1.1 Phonological change2.1.2 Morphological change -- 2.2 Replacement -- 2.2.1 Functionally motivated change -- 2.2.2 Formally motivated change -- 3. Loss of features -- 3.1 Free variation -- 3.2 Lexical redistribution -- 3.3 Paradigmatic redistribution -- 3.4 Rebranding -- 4. Loss of cells -- 5. Grammaticalisation and the loss of inflection -- 6. Conclusion -- References -- 2. So-adj-a construction as a case of obsolescence in progress -- 1. Introduction -- 2. So-adj-a construction -- an example of the Big Mess Construction -- 2.1 Noun phrases with so-adj predeterminers -- their characteristics -- 3. Diachronic account3.1 The construction's origin: A handy stylistic device from the very beginning? -- 3.2 Frequency of use -- 3.2.1 Methodology -- 3.2.2 Results and discussion -- 4. Grammatical obsolescence -- 4.1 Negative correlation between time and the frequency of use -- 4.2 Distributional fragmentation -- 4.2.1 Methodology -- 4.2.2 Results and discussion -- 4.3 Paradigmatic atrophy -- 4.4 Competition on the constructional level -- 4.4.1 That-adj-a construction -- 4.4.2 Competition with the that-adj-a construction: An explanation -- 4.4.3 Such-a-adj construction -- 4.5 Larger changes4.6 Summary of the results -- 5. Conclusions and outlook -- Acknowledgements -- Language corpora -- Software -- References -- 3. The impersonal construction in the texts of Updated Old English -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Updated Old English -- 2.1 Scribal practices followed in Updated Old English -- 2.2 The Updated Old English data for the present study -- 2.3 The data in their linguistic context -- 3. The story of the impersonal construction -- 4. Analysis -- 4.1 Lexico-semantic characteristics of the impersonal verbs in the sample4.2 Alterations in the record of the impersonal constructions in the sample -- 5. Discussion and concluding remarks -- Acknowledgements -- References -- 4. Corpus driven identification of lexical bundle obsolescence in Late Modern English -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Material -- 3. Methodology -- 3.1 Thresholds -- 3.2 Selection -- 4. Technical aspects -- 5. Analysis -- 5.1 Trash -- 5.2 Results -- 5.2.1 Terminology -- 5.2.2 "Quasi" terminology -- 5.2.3 Appellations -- 5.2.4 Legal/administrative phrases -- 5.2.5 Dating -- 5.2.6 Pragmatic markers -- 5.2.7 Replacement in collocations1 online resource
German so-relatives: Lost in grammatical, typological, and sociolinguistic change
No full textThe paper presents a corpus-based analysis of the loss of the relativizer so in New High German. The corpus data show that the frequencies dropped in the 18th century, with significant differences among regions and genres. The distributions underpin a relation to chancery language (as assumed in the literature), but the particle was also used in all other domains when sophisticated style was aimed at. Since the demise of chancery language does not fully account for the disappearance of so relatives, a broader socio-historical background and general language change of the time needs to be taken into account. Large-scale developments, such as increasing literacy and the Enlightenment, are shown to have induced fundamental language changes. Overall, written German underwent a typological drift to overt, morphosyntax-based complexity. This is evidenced by a number of general grammatical developments. Specifically, the increase of nominal concord conflicted with so relativizers, as they were uninflected. Overall, aggregative and indistinct structures were given up in favor of more integrative and precise constructions. The study reveals the fundamental importance of considering the entire language system and general socio-cultural and socio-linguistic changes in the study of grammatical obsolescence
Special issue:Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers
No full textProper nouns used as modifiers, e.g. the Watergate scandal, a London theatre, the many Shakespeare biographies, are a common future of the English language, perhaps most strikingly visible in news headlines. Their usage increased substantially as part of a general rise in usage of premodifying nouns in the 19th and 20th centuries (Biber & Clark 2002; Rosenbach 2007; Biber et al. 2009; Biber & Gray 2011, 2016). Though part of general changes to the English noun phrase (see also Günther 2018), they stand out from other modifiers because of the special referential status of proper nouns. Where adjectival and nominal modifiers typically add further description, denoting, amongst others, subtypes (red grapes, cat food), properties (black dog, linen curtains) or evaluations (beautiful day), proper nouns in their prototypical usage refer to and identify individual people, places, organisations, etc. Used as modifiers, proper nouns retain their identifying function. In the Watergate scandal, Watergate refers to the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C and singles out one particular scandal, i.e. the scandal happening in the office complex named Watergate. The function of proper nouns can be contrasted to common nouns in premodifying position (e.g. water bed, stone cottage), which serve to classify or describe rather than single out the entity denoted by the noun phrase. The apparent incongruence of their occurrence as modifiers sparked interest not only for English, but also for other Germanic languages. The first scholars to single them out as special were Anette Rosenbach and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rosenbach 2005). Since then, there has emerged a small but growing body of studies on English (Rosenbach 2006, 2007, 2010; Breban 2018), Swedish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009, 2013) and German (Zifonun 2010a, 2010b; Schlücker 2013, 2018), which rather than fully explaining the phenomenon raise a variety of interesting questions and topics to explore. These questions pertain to different areas of linguistics and require different empirical data and methods to answer them. This special issue brings together linguists from a variety of backgrounds to offer different perspectives on proper noun modifiers and to take proper noun modifiers as an empirical starting point to explore questions in their diverse areas of expertise
Special issue:Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers
No full textProper nouns used as modifiers, e.g. the Watergate scandal, a London theatre, the many Shakespeare biographies, are a common future of the English language, perhaps most strikingly visible in news headlines. Their usage increased substantially as part of a general rise in usage of premodifying nouns in the 19th and 20th centuries (Biber & Clark 2002; Rosenbach 2007; Biber et al. 2009; Biber & Gray 2011, 2016). Though part of general changes to the English noun phrase (see also Günther 2018), they stand out from other modifiers because of the special referential status of proper nouns. Where adjectival and nominal modifiers typically add further description, denoting, amongst others, subtypes (red grapes, cat food), properties (black dog, linen curtains) or evaluations (beautiful day), proper nouns in their prototypical usage refer to and identify individual people, places, organisations, etc. Used as modifiers, proper nouns retain their identifying function. In the Watergate scandal, Watergate refers to the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C and singles out one particular scandal, i.e. the scandal happening in the office complex named Watergate. The function of proper nouns can be contrasted to common nouns in premodifying position (e.g. water bed, stone cottage), which serve to classify or describe rather than single out the entity denoted by the noun phrase. The apparent incongruence of their occurrence as modifiers sparked interest not only for English, but also for other Germanic languages. The first scholars to single them out as special were Anette Rosenbach and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rosenbach 2005). Since then, there has emerged a small but growing body of studies on English (Rosenbach 2006, 2007, 2010; Breban 2018), Swedish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009, 2013) and German (Zifonun 2010a, 2010b; Schlücker 2013, 2018), which rather than fully explaining the phenomenon raise a variety of interesting questions and topics to explore. These questions pertain to different areas of linguistics and require different empirical data and methods to answer them. This special issue brings together linguists from a variety of backgrounds to offer different perspectives on proper noun modifiers and to take proper noun modifiers as an empirical starting point to explore questions in their diverse areas of expertise
Special issue:Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers
No full textProper nouns used as modifiers, e.g. the Watergate scandal, a London theatre, the many Shakespeare biographies, are a common future of the English language, perhaps most strikingly visible in news headlines. Their usage increased substantially as part of a general rise in usage of premodifying nouns in the 19th and 20th centuries (Biber & Clark 2002; Rosenbach 2007; Biber et al. 2009; Biber & Gray 2011, 2016). Though part of general changes to the English noun phrase (see also Günther 2018), they stand out from other modifiers because of the special referential status of proper nouns. Where adjectival and nominal modifiers typically add further description, denoting, amongst others, subtypes (red grapes, cat food), properties (black dog, linen curtains) or evaluations (beautiful day), proper nouns in their prototypical usage refer to and identify individual people, places, organisations, etc. Used as modifiers, proper nouns retain their identifying function. In the Watergate scandal, Watergate refers to the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C and singles out one particular scandal, i.e. the scandal happening in the office complex named Watergate. The function of proper nouns can be contrasted to common nouns in premodifying position (e.g. water bed, stone cottage), which serve to classify or describe rather than single out the entity denoted by the noun phrase. The apparent incongruence of their occurrence as modifiers sparked interest not only for English, but also for other Germanic languages. The first scholars to single them out as special were Anette Rosenbach and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rosenbach 2005). Since then, there has emerged a small but growing body of studies on English (Rosenbach 2006, 2007, 2010; Breban 2018), Swedish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009, 2013) and German (Zifonun 2010a, 2010b; Schlücker 2013, 2018), which rather than fully explaining the phenomenon raise a variety of interesting questions and topics to explore. These questions pertain to different areas of linguistics and require different empirical data and methods to answer them. This special issue brings together linguists from a variety of backgrounds to offer different perspectives on proper noun modifiers and to take proper noun modifiers as an empirical starting point to explore questions in their diverse areas of expertise
Special issue:Different perspectives on proper noun modifiers
No full textProper nouns used as modifiers, e.g. the Watergate scandal, a London theatre, the many Shakespeare biographies, are a common future of the English language, perhaps most strikingly visible in news headlines. Their usage increased substantially as part of a general rise in usage of premodifying nouns in the 19th and 20th centuries (Biber & Clark 2002; Rosenbach 2007; Biber et al. 2009; Biber & Gray 2011, 2016). Though part of general changes to the English noun phrase (see also Günther 2018), they stand out from other modifiers because of the special referential status of proper nouns. Where adjectival and nominal modifiers typically add further description, denoting, amongst others, subtypes (red grapes, cat food), properties (black dog, linen curtains) or evaluations (beautiful day), proper nouns in their prototypical usage refer to and identify individual people, places, organisations, etc. Used as modifiers, proper nouns retain their identifying function. In the Watergate scandal, Watergate refers to the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C and singles out one particular scandal, i.e. the scandal happening in the office complex named Watergate. The function of proper nouns can be contrasted to common nouns in premodifying position (e.g. water bed, stone cottage), which serve to classify or describe rather than single out the entity denoted by the noun phrase. The apparent incongruence of their occurrence as modifiers sparked interest not only for English, but also for other Germanic languages. The first scholars to single them out as special were Anette Rosenbach and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Koptjevskaja-Tamm & Rosenbach 2005). Since then, there has emerged a small but growing body of studies on English (Rosenbach 2006, 2007, 2010; Breban 2018), Swedish (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2009, 2013) and German (Zifonun 2010a, 2010b; Schlücker 2013, 2018), which rather than fully explaining the phenomenon raise a variety of interesting questions and topics to explore. These questions pertain to different areas of linguistics and require different empirical data and methods to answer them. This special issue brings together linguists from a variety of backgrounds to offer different perspectives on proper noun modifiers and to take proper noun modifiers as an empirical starting point to explore questions in their diverse areas of expertise
Is there a postdeterminer in the English noun phrase?
No full textSeveral functional analyses of the English noun phrase have proposed postdeterminers as a separate element in addition to determiners, modifiers and noun. However, there is no consensus on the definition or the types of item that are considered postdeterminers. Other studies do not distinguish postdeterminers, and some even argue against them. I propose an alternative analysis of Present-Day English (PDE) postdeterminers that incorporates aspects of all the studies cited above. I argue that postdeterminers are not a separate slot. However, they do constitute a distinctive pattern in English with their own semantics and structural properties as suggested in the functional literature. What have been called postdeterminers should be conceived of as part of complex determinatives. Synchronically, this proposal further pursues the distinction of complex versus simple determinatives. Diachronically, I hypothesise that structurally complex determinatives are a natural consequence of the Old and early Middle English developments leading to the definite and indefinite articles as prototypical determinatives in the English noun phrase. © The author 2011. Transactions of the Philological Society © The Philological Society 2011. Published by Blackwell Publishing
- …
