Abstract I set out to develop a better understanding of why speakers use lexical expressions innovatively for the expression of grammatical meanings instead of using a conventional grammatical expression and why they continue to do so to such an extent that the construction indeed grammaticalizes. I argue that this phenomenon is somewhat paradoxical. Grammatical expressions are more frequent and conventionalised than lexical expressions, so it is not clear why speakers would choose a lexical expression in their stead for the expression of a grammatical meaning. I argue that none of the existing usage-based solutions for this paradox — expressivity, extravagance, cognitive activation — can fully explain the phenomenon. In this paper, I propose a new explanation for innovation based on relative frequency that complements the cognitive activation approach. I argue that a lexical expression can have a selective advantage in contexts in which analogical models (i.e., existing uses of the lexical expression that are similar to the novel grammatical meaning) have a higher relative frequency than the competing grammatical expressions. Using the semantic innovation of the meaning intention in be going to as a case study, I show that almost all early instances of be going to with intention occur in contexts in which its analogical model (motion-with-intention be going to ) has a significantly higher relative frequency than competing constructions such as will, ’ll , and shall . The paper highlights the importance of considering relative frequency and considering competing constructions for understanding why lexical expressions get used innovatively with grammatical meaning.
Abstract Semantic change proceeds via an A > A/B (> B) trajectory ( Traugott & Dasher 2002 ). While semantic extension (i.e., A > A/B) is now relatively well-understood, semantic loss (i.e., A/B (>B)) is not. This article argues that the mechanism of semantic extension is a determinant of the likelihood of loss. Specifically, loss is more likely following extension through inference-driven metonymy than following metaphorical extension. This is because metaphorically related senses tend to be contextually more distinct, which better supports polysemy sustenance. Conversely, because inference-driven extensions typically rely on bridging contexts, related senses often occur in overlapping contexts. This makes loss of the source sense more likely following extension. Evidence to support this argument is drawn from different corpus-based case studies into the semantic development of the English adjectives bright , dumb , narrow , and strange , and Dutch eng ‘frightening’.
Semantic change proceeds via an A > A/B (> B) trajectory (Traugott & Dasher 2002). While semantic extension (i.e., A > A/B) is now relatively well-understood, semantic loss (i.e., A/B (>B)) is not. This article argues that the mechanism of semantic extension is a determinant of the likelihood of loss. Specifically, loss is more likely following extension through inference-driven metonymy than following metaphorical extension. This is because metaphorically related senses tend to be contextually more distinct, which better supports polysemy sustenance. Conversely, because inference-driven extensions typically rely on bridging contexts, related senses often occur in overlapping contexts. This makes loss of the source sense more likely following extension. Evidence to support this argument is drawn from different corpus-based case studies into the semantic development of the English adjectives bright, dumb, narrow, and strange, and Dutch eng 'frightening'.
The negation marker in Hewram & icirc;, m & eacute;-, originated as a marker of imperfective aspect. A series of regular sound changes setting Hewram & icirc; apart from its closely related sisters caused the demorphologization of the original prefix. The subsequent morphologization of stress accent caused the imperfective prefix, fully retained only in the context of negation, to be reinterpreted as a marker of negation. In this article, we explore these developments in comparison with closely related varieties that have preserved every stage in the process.
This paper explores the relationship between ambiguity and reanalysis in syntactic change, with a particular focus on the interplay between structural and semantic ambiguity. The diachronic corpus study examines two cases of syntactic reanalysis. The first involves the development of the German directional adverb hinaus 'out, outward' into a verbal particle, while the second traces the evolution of the same adverb into an adposition, specifically as part of the circumposition [& uuml;ber NPACC hinaus] 'beyond, besides'. The paper argues that structural ambiguity may, but does not necessarily, align with semantic ambiguity, which has implications for potential diachronic shifts. Structural ambiguity alone does not necessarily lead to reanalysis and should not be regarded merely as a transitional stage in gradual diachronic change; rather, it may represent a relatively stable state. In this sense, structural ambiguity can serve as a potential starting point for reanalysis, though it does not inherently drive the process.
