2008WORD StructureOpen access

A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions

Graeme Trousdale

Open full text 125 citations

Abstract

This article is concerned with aspects of lexicalization in the history of English from the perspective of Construction Grammar (CxnG). I show how constructional approaches can account for both grammaticalization and lexicalization within a unified framework, basing my argument around the two kinds of input to lexicalization which Brinton & Traugott (2005 : 96) identify: syntactic constructions and word formation patterns. In lexicalization, linguistic forms that initially participate in an abstract schematic macro- or meso-construction, become idiosyncratic micro-constructions, whereas in grammaticalization an idiosyncratic micro-construction comes to participate in a more schematic meso- or macro-level construction. The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evolution of what Taylor (1996) has described as possessive compounds, such as driver's license, in the history of English. I specifically consider how the CxnG framework can explain the development of form-meaning mismatches, conventionalization, and the loss of internal constituency, in lexicalization. The data suggest that a constructional approach can account for the two stages of lexicalization (grammatical to lexical, less lexical to more lexical) in a way parallel to the two stages of grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical, less grammatical to more grammatical).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article is concerned with aspects of lexicalization in the history of English from the perspective of Construction Grammar (CxnG). I show how constructional approaches can account for both grammaticalization and lexicalization within a unified framework, basing my argument around the two kinds of input to lexicalization which Brinton & Traugott (2005 : 96) identify: syntactic constructions and word formation patterns. In lexicalization, linguistic forms that initially participate in an abstract schematic macro- or meso-construction, become idiosyncratic micro-constructions, whereas in grammaticalization an idiosyncratic micro-construction comes to participate in a more schematic meso- or macro-level construction. The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evolution of what Taylor (1996) has described as possessive compounds, such as driver's license, in the history of English. I specifically consider how the CxnG framework can explain the development of form-meaning mismatches, conventionalization, and the loss of internal constituency, in lexicalization. The data suggest that a constructional approach can account for the two stages of lexicalization (grammatical to lexical, less lexical to more lexical) in a way parallel to the two stages of grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical, less grammatical to more grammatical).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 125 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article is concerned with aspects of lexicalization in the history of English from the perspective of Construction Grammar (CxnG). I show how constructional approaches can account for both grammaticalization and lexicalization within a unified framework, basing my argument around the two kinds of input to lexicalization which Brinton & Traugott (2005 : 96) identify: syntactic constructions and word formation patterns. In lexicalization, linguistic forms that initially participate in an abstract schematic macro- or meso-construction, become idiosyncratic micro-constructions, whereas in grammaticalization an idiosyncratic micro-construction comes to participate in a more schematic meso- or macro-level construction. The main part of the paper is devoted to a discussion of the evolution of what Taylor (1996) has described as possessive compounds, such as driver's license, in the history of English. I specifically consider how the CxnG framework can explain the development of form-meaning mismatches, conventionalization, and the loss of internal constituency, in lexicalization. The data suggest that a constructional approach can account for the two stages of lexicalization (grammatical to lexical, less lexical to more lexical) in a way parallel to the two stages of grammaticalization (lexical to grammatical, less grammatical to more grammatical).

Key concepts: Lexicalization, Grammaticalization, Linguistics, Possessive, History of English, Grammar, Construction grammar, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: Evidence from possessive constructions — Research Paper | ScholarLens