In this section, we will first discuss in detail some constructional changes in order to show that they are indeed cases of reanalysis followed by actualisation (Section 3.1).
Constructions are part of the grammar; accordingly, they may undergo regramma-tion, in Henning Andersen’s terminology (Section 3.2). In Section 3.3 we discuss some interesting consequences of regrammation. We present a series of variations and changes of verb use in order to identify the processes behind them. In particular, we want to distinguish between individual lexical changes and changes at the level of constructions.
3.1 Regrammation of constructions
We define a change as the result of a reanalysis that spread among speakers and which is accepted by the community of speakers. Let us investigate whether this
44. Different views on constructions and on how constructions have come into existence will be discussed in Chapter 7.
Chapter 3. Constructions 93
understanding af reanalysis conforms to the changes mentioned above. We will first return to the telic-atelic alternation illustrated in Section 2.1 by the examples (1a) Peter skød Frederik, ‘Peter shot Frederick’, and (1b) Peter skød på Frederik, ‘Peter shot at Frederick’. We have seen that it is so productive that loan words can adapt to it. Let us try to reconstruct a plausible scenario for the creation of the atelic meaning in the first place. We propose that the prepositional construction with på originated as a locative counterpart to the direct object construction in e.g. (20a). The preposition på is a reduced form of the complex preposition upp ā ‘on top of’, ‘on’, ‘upon’: uppā > på.
This is the Scandinavian variant (upp + ā) of Protogermanic *an, German an, English on. The meaning may well have been ‘to build upon’, ‘to build an addition to’. Example (20b) would then be the starting point for the reanalysis from an exclusively locative to an ambiguous use, locative and atelic.
(20) a. Peter bygger huset
‘Peter is building the house’
b. Peter bygger på huset
‘Peter is building [on] the house’
Reanalyses first happen at the individual level and it is hypothesised to have happened by abduction: the speaker using the prepositional construction transfers the implica-tions of the use of the preposition (which is that the ongoing activity is atelic) to the construction as such, ruling out the original locative use, according to the well known process of change:
A > {A, B} > B, in this case: locative > {locative, atelic} > atelic
The reanalyses of the locative preposition på as a marker of atelicity, is a case of gram-maticalisation. During this process, the locative preposition loses its original lexical meaning and turns into a grammatical element. The important point here is that it is only in this construction that we see a bleaching of the locative preposition.
The reanalysis proposed for the creation of the atelic construction illustrated by the verb bygge is a grammatical change, as the construction achieves a specific content of atelic activity, which supposedly was not there in the first place. We will consider this type of change and its consequences more closely in the following sections.
As proposed by Andersen (2008), we hold that in general changes should be divided into “(i) changes into, (ii) changes within or among, and (iii) changes out of lexical or grammatical paradigms”. We classify the creation of the atelic construc-tion, as proposed in the preceding subsecconstruc-tion, as a case of (ii), i.e. changes within grammatical paradigms.
A construction may undergo a change and achieve a more specific meaning (A, B > B). In the present case, this change concerns exclusively the content of the
94 Connecting Grammaticalisation
construction, not the expression, and it is a case of regrammation, as the construction is already part of the grammar.
3.2 Lexical change and constructional change 3.2.1 Causative morphology and causative constructions
A well-known example of grammaticalised causativity is the reformation of Germanic causative morphological paradigms to constructional paradigms. Germanic formed causatives with the suffix *-iya- (-ija-), normally from a stem with an ablaut grade dif-ferent from that of the intransitive verb.
Intransitive Causative
a. *wak-a-n ‘be awake’ *wak-ija-n ‘wake’
b. *set-ja-n ‘sit’ *sat-ija-n ‘set’
c. *far-a-n ‘move, travel’ *for-ija-n ‘lead’
d. *leg-ja-n ‘lie’ *lag-ija-n ‘lay’
e. *knekk-a-n ‘break’ *knakk-ija-n ‘break’
f. *brinn-a-n ‘burn’ *brann-ija-n ‘burn, put on fire’
g. *slekw-a-n ‘go out (of fire)’ *slakw-ija-n ‘put out, extinguish’
h. *tendan ‘burst in flames’ *tand-ija-n ‘light, ignite’
i. *springan ‘spring, run’ *sprangian ‘make run’
j. *weltan ‘turn over’ *walt-ija-n ‘turn over’
Some Germanic verbs were, however, neutral with respect to this distinction, and they may have served as a model for the later generalisation.
Intransitive Causative
k. *aukan ‘grow, increase’ *aukan ‘increase’
Old Scandinavian had lexicalised the intransitive vs. causative distinction to a large extent. Except for i., their lexical meanings have roughly survived to the present day.
In Middle Danish some of these verbs merged (letter marking is retained to facilitate comparison: g, h, j, and still k):
Intransitive Causative
a. wake wækie
b. sitie sætie
c. fare føre
d. liggie læggie e. knække knækkie
f. brinne brænne
g. slække slække
h. tænde tænde
i. springe sprænge
j. wælte wælte
k. øke øke
Chapter 3. Constructions 95
In Modern Danish, some verbs still differ lexically, for instance:
Intransitive Causative
a. våge vække
b. sidde sætte
c. fare føre
d. ligge lægge
i. springe ‘burst, split, explode; run’ sprænge ‘cause to burst, blow up;
Many more verbs merge to form a purely constructional opposition by integration in the new causative or ergative constructional paradigm (see Table 2), for instance:
Intransitive Causative e. knække knække f. brænde brænde g. slukke slukke
h. tænde tænde
j. vælte vælte
k. øge øge
In the spoken informal language, the intransitive form ligge has been generalised to also function as the causative form. Similarly, springe and sprænge are confounded in both directions.
Intransitive Causative
ligge ligge
springe springe or: sprænge sprænge
The lexical adjustment for the construction is part of the actualisation process of the paradigm. The verbs fitting the construction have multiple roots and origins. A num-ber of them are reshaped -ija-causative verbs of Germanic heritage as listed above;
some verbs of Germanic origin have different formations: trille (< *trizlōn), no -ija- verb; another group comprise loan verbs interpreted for the causative constructional paradigm: rulle ‘roll’ (via Ger. rullen, rollen < Fr. rouler < Lat. rotulare), koge (via Germ.
koken < < Fr. coquer < Lat. coquere), brække (from Low German breken, *brecan is not Norse); and some verbs are formed on the basis of internal Nordic material, for instance stege ‘fry, roast’ (from steg, stek ‘steak’).
More verbs may lose their lexical marking to become exclusively constructionally marked. Apparently, the lexical marking has been reanalysed as redundant and is in the process of being abandoned. The result is that only the constructional marking is retained.
96 Connecting Grammaticalisation
In the Romance languages, changes similar to those described above have taken place, so that we no longer find series of etymologically related pairs such as sto – sisto.
These changes can be interpreted as an increase of the importance of constructional marking in Romance languages.
In the course of the actualisation process following a reanalysis into a more spe-cific construction, a change may manifest itself in two possible ways: by the fossilisa-tion of non-prototypical verbs, and/or by the ejecfossilisa-tion of non-prototypical verbs. These consequences of construction changes will be exemplified in the following subsections.
3.2.2 Reinterpretation and regrammation of constructions
Indirect object constructions constitute a central type of A3 construction. This con-struction has undergone considerable semantic change in Danish from the 18th cen-tury to the present day. Ascribing the semantic role of the Recipient to its referent was probably always a central function of the IO, but in the language of the present day this function is practically the only one possible.
(21) Peter gav Ida bogen Peter gave Ida the book ‘Peter gave Ida the book’
The 18th century grammarian Høysgaard lists a wider range of application such as the semantic role of Benefactive (dative of interest: dativus commodi):
(22) a. han skal løse os knuden he must untie us (io) the knot ‘he must untie the knot for us’
b. åbne nogen en dør open somebody (io) a door ‘open a door for somebody’
c. pløje en et stykke jord
plough somebody (io) a piece of land ‘plough a piece of land for somebody’
d. skrive en et brev write someone (io) a letter
‘write a letter for somebody (on somebody’s behalf)’
(22a–d) are all from Høysgaard (1752: 107–108). Such examples are impossible in the modern language where prepositional constructions only are possible.
(23) a. han skal løse knuden for os he must untie the knot for us ‘he must untie the knot for us’
Chapter 3. Constructions 97
b. åbne en dør for nogen open a door for somebody ‘open a door for someone’
c. pløje et stykke jord for en plough a piece of land for someone ‘plough a piece of land for someone’
d. skrive et brev for nogen write a letter for somebody
‘write a letter for somebody (on somebody’s behalf)’
Thus, around 1750, in Danish the indirect object construction was used with a larger range of different verbs than what we find in Modern Danish. Accordingly, the indirect object was less specific in this period. In Modern Danish, the IO is mainly reserved to designate the Recipient of an action of transfer, and the Benefactive uses are obsolete.
This implies that during the period 1750–1870 a reanalysis took place of the meaning of the construction, in particular of the indirect object itself. The actualisation process of this change consisted among other things in the exclusion from this construction of certain verbs that did not fit the semantic transfer pattern and thus did not apply the role of receiver to A3.
3.2.3 Ejection of non-prototypical verbs
As stated in the previous subsection, the indirect object construction was found, especially in Early Modern Danish, with verbs expressing no transfer from one person to another, as give-verbs do. However, for a speaker of Modern Danish, the indirect object construction is apparently so closely linked to the meaning of trans-fer that IO-verbs having a diftrans-ferent meaning, like e.g. bebrejde ‘to blame’, godskrive
‘to credit’, tilgive ‘to forgive’, are in the process of adopting a new prepositional pat-tern. In these cases, the pattern adopted is that exemplified by kritisere ‘to criticise’, so that we may find innovative usage, e.g. bebrejde nogen for noget, with the preposi-tion for introducing the point of criticism, just as in English. This shows that verbs having a deviant content may be ejected from their original construction. This ongoing change of construction is illustrated below in examples (27)–(29) quoted from google.dk.
(24) Peter bebrejder Ida ulykken Peter blames Ida the accident
‘Peter blames Ida for the accident’
(25) Peter godskriver Ida et beløb på 100 kroner Peter credits Ida an amount of 100 kroner
‘Peter credits an amount of 100 kroner to Ida’
98 Connecting Grammaticalisation
(26) Peter tilgiver Ida fejltagelsen Peter forgives Ida the mistake
‘Peter forgives Ida for the mistake’
(27) Centret [kan] vurdere og eventuelt godskrive eleven for den tid der normalt bruges på de …kurser
‘the Centre may evaluate and possibly credit the pupil for the time that is normally spent on these courses’
(http://www.amunordjylland.dk/digitalAssets/1631_Undervisningsplan%2 0Bus%202005.pdf)
(28) Kan man bebrejde hende for at være sin mors datter?
‘Can you blame her for being her mother’s daughter?’
http://www.matadoronline.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=304andsid=2971156 97219ec6a761e2bcf1fad781b
(29) Tilgive dig for det du har gjort ‘Forgive you for what you have done’.
http://digte.dk/digte/poem.asp?digt=339876andForfatter= 16715
This reanalysis of the content of the indirect object construction and the following actualisation took place in Early Modern Danish and during the 19th century, with the result that the content of the construction is now more semantically specific than before. Marginalisation and, possibly, exclusion of deviant verbs is one symptom revealing this change.
3.3 Further examples of relexicalisation between constructions
Further examples are given below to illustrate that verbs can be reinterpreted and transferred from one paradigm to another. Once more, this fact confirms the reality of constructions as a level of organisation.
3.3.1 Voler
The first case is well known from French: the development of voler ‘to steal’ or ‘to fly’
as illustrated in (30) and (31):
(30) Pierre/l’oiseau/l’avion vole
‘Peter, the bird, the plane is flying’
(31) Pierre/*l’oiseau/*l’avion vole [de l’argent] [à Marie]
‘Peter, *the bird, *the plane is stealing money from Marie’
Originally there was only one verb meaning ‘to fly’, and it belonged to the class of verbs with caused motion alternation, such as (32ab):
(32) a. l’argent vole
‘the money is flying away, disappears’
Chapter 3. Constructions 99
b. Pierre vole l’argent (à Marie)
‘Peter causes the money to fly away, to disappear (from Marie)’
It was only later that the verb split into two homonyms with distinct valency pat-terns and different meanings. Therefore, at their origin (30) and (31) shared a common semantic frame, as voler in both constructions was indeed a verb of movement, and they were examples of the intransitive motion construction and the caused motion construction, respectively. The causative use of voler illustrated in (31) has since devel-oped into an independent verb, so that we now have a genuine case of homophony between two verbs – voler_1 and voler_2 – that to a Frenchman seem unrelated. Con-sequently, we will not classify these verbs as instantiations of a construction in the sense used here, as (30) and (31) no longer share a common semantic frame in Mod-ern French. The additional argument for not classifying (30) and (31) as altMod-ernating constructions is that they constitute an isolated case and not a paradigm found with other verbs.
The case of French voler is an illustration of the removal of a verb from a construc-tion (the caused moconstruc-tion alternaconstruc-tion) with subsequent lexicalisaconstruc-tion of the transitive use acquiring the meaning of ‘to steal’. The removal of transitive voler had no effect on the productivity of this construction.
3.3.2 Forbid
The second case concerns an ongoing change in English. To forbid is a performative verb in Standard English,45 and it is followed by an infinitive introduced by to, like similar directive verbs such as to order and to command. These verbs have a similar meaning which is ‘order (not) to V’. However, to forbid is in the process of changing its pattern in favour of Prep + Gerund instead of an infinitive: the pattern of (33b) appears alternating with the traditional pattern of (33a):
(33) a. they forbade the inmates to read - the inmates were forbidden to read b. they forbade the inmates from reading - they were forbidden from reading c. they prevented them from reading - they were prevented from reading
The creation of (33b) is the result of a reanalysis of the content of the verb. Instead of being a performative verb, the verb to forbid has been interpreted by the speakers as a way of preventing somebody from doing something, thus adopting the pattern of to
45. We thank Henning Andersen for having drawn our attention to this example. We repro-duce his analysis of the ongoing change.
100 Connecting Grammaticalisation
prevent (33c). Thus this is a case where a change of expression reveals that a change of content has taken place.
3.3.3 Verbs of electronic communication
Recent loan verbs adapt to specific constructions. Let us consider the construction possibilities of newly coined verbs of electronic communication in English and French.
These verbs display a number of construction patterns, and the construction possibili-ties in English and French cannot be explained as cases of simple lexical analogy with the traditional use of English or French verbs of communication. The latter do not present these construction possibilities, nor can the French constructions be explained as calques from English, because there is no direct match. We interpret these cases of synchronic variation as cases of integration of the verbs into different construction paradigms. In each case the lexical meaning of the verb takes a specific colouring from the construction, as we saw in the case of brainstorme (examples (3) quoted above).
Thus, English to skype with, see (34),46 along with expected constructions to skype somebody or to skype to somebody, and French skyper avec along with skyper à (35), indicate that this is conceived by the speaker as a shared activity, and that accordingly a construction expressing shared activities is chosen, i.e. the one found with e.g. to cooperate with, travailler avec, respectively:
(34) I skyped with James last night (35) j’ai skypé avec mes petits chéris à Paris
‘I skyped with my little darlings in Paris’
If another construction is chosen, the verbs take a different colouring, e.g. the direct object construction in (36) and (37), turning the verb into a simple transitive like the verb contacter, ‘get in touch with’:
(36) Bonjour, je pars à l’étranger et je souhaiterai msné et skypé ma copine en france.
‘Hello, I am going abroad and I would like to sms and to skype my girl friend in France’.
(37) j’ai mailé Thomas pour qui’il réduise « l’agressivité » (…) ‘I emailed Thomas to make him reduce the «aggressiveness»
46. The examples in (33) – including their original typos – are found on the www. They are quoted from a paper presented by the CONTAGRAM research team at “Verb Typologies revisited: A Cross-Linguistic Reflection on Verbs and Verb Classes”, Ghent, 5th–7th February 2009.
Chapter 3. Constructions 101
The conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that new verbs are integrated into the construction possibilities of grammar. Indeed, no verb can exist in a language without being integrated in at least one of the possible constructions of that language, much in same way as any new verb must be integrated in the inflexional systems of the category of verbs, i.e. in the paradigmatic structure of the language.
The recent Danish loan verb brainstorme is an obvious example, since no other verb offers itself as a lexical model. Clearly, simple analogy to a lexical model is not what matters here; this is a question of integrating a new item into already existing grammatical structures. This is why this case is relevant for a discussion of grammati-calisation and construction grammar; it is not merely a trivial extension of the lexi-con. In the case of brainstorme, the choice between the two constructional possibilities implies that the abstract content of that construction (+ telicity) is “added” to the lexi-cal semantics of the particular verb. If we accept a “broad” interpretation of the term analogy, these examples are cases of analogical mappings of expression and content to existing constructions.
3.4 Conclusion of Section 3
In Section 3, we have examined cases of variation and changes of verb use in detail.
In particular, we have used the verb bygge, ‘to build’, as an illustration of the proces of reanalysis leading to regrammation. We have shown the consequences of regramma-tion for verbs that do not conform to the change of content in the lexical group of verbs to which they belong. We have seen that such verbs can be ejected from the construc-tion, e.g. verbs like bebrejde, ‘to blame’. Finally, the case of new loan verbs has allowed us to confirm the status of constructions as part of grammar.