Constructional change vs. grammaticalization

Abstract

Building on recent findings made in the framework of Construction Grammar, on the one hand, and within the framework on grammaticalization, on the other, the present paper is concerned with the development from lexical compounding to derivation. Compounding is presumably the most common source of derivational categories and this applies in particular to modifying (endocentric) compounds, which are the main subject of this paper. By looking at three cases of grammatical change in English, German, and the West African language Ewe it is argued that the two frameworks differ in their goals and in their approaches. Both frameworks search for regularities in grammatical change, but whereas Construction Grammar has a focus on constructional change, that is, change in the development of constructions, the central question asked by students of grammaticalization is how and why, e.g., lexical categories give rise to grammatical (or functional) categories.

For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar

“…I do not conceive of this research thread as a breakaway from grammaticalization theory, but rather as a continuation of it, unlikeHeine et al (2016), who are quite defensive of grammaticalization theory and construe it as standing in opposition to diachronic constructionist work.…”

Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar

“…Trousdale (2015) and Heine et al (2016) have identified some theoretical premises of construction grammar that make the framework less suitable for addressing some of the central issues in grammaticalization. Construction grammar, for one, does not make a fundamental distinction between lexical and grammatical forms.…”

“…Second, the meaning of individual constructions may be mapped onto a more abstract conceptual space, as has been shown in great detail by Croft (2002). Heine et al (2016) go on to argue that semantic changes in grammaticalization are driven by discourse and context rather than the construction itself. Again, this issue is not incompatible with construction grammar, rather on the contrary.…”

“…Neels & Hartmann (this volume) illustrate this usage-based approach by exploring the role of bridging contexts for the grammaticalization of degree modifiers. Finally, Heine et al (2016) claim that the "main arena of work on constructional change is language history, that of students of grammaticalization is the search for typological generalizations on the evolution of functional categories". This assessment contrasts with the effort of Hölzl (this volume) to translate Heine & Kuteva's (2010) concept of 'grammaticalization areas' into 'constructionalization areas', i.e.…”

“…In the wake of this work, efforts have been made in grammaticalization research to more precisely articulate the largely pretheoretical notion of construction in the theoretical framework of construction grammar. Confronting grammaticalization research with the framework of construction grammar also brought up the question how grammaticalization relates to constructional change in general (Noël, 2007;Gisborne & Patten, 2011;Heine et al, 2016). As such, grammaticalization research increasingly interacts and converges with the emerging field of diachronic construction grammar (Israel, 1996;Bergs & Diewald, 2008;Barðdal et al, 2015).…”