1. Grammatical constructionalization: Rethinking grammaticalization in the light of constructionalization Elizabeth Closs Traugott traugott@stanford.edu traugott@stanford.edu in collaboration with Graeme Trousdale University of Santiago de Compostela, Oct. 17 th 2012 1

2. Outline My overall objective. Summary of key points about: – the model of construction grammar (CxG) used, – a constructional account of change, – grammatical constructionalization (GCxzn). The two main current views of grammaticalization (Gzn) and how they can be reconciled. - Gzn as reduction and increased dependency (GIRD) - Gzn as expansion (GE) A brief look at BE going to again in light of GCxzn. Conclusions. 2

3. Objective Together with Graeme Trousdale I seek to develop a coherent and restrictive account from a usage-based construction grammar perspective of the development of constructions over time that resynthesizes what we know about language/sign change (Traugott & Trousdale Forthc). Today I discuss some aspects of thinking about grammatical change and how it relates to work on grammaticalization. 3

4. Construction grammar: key points According to the model of construction grammar (CxG) I espouse (see Croft 2001, Goldberg 2006): a) The basic unit of grammar is the construction (Cxn): a conventional pairing of form and meaning. b) Grammar is non-modular—morphosyntax, phonology, semantics, pragmatics, discourse function cannot be studied separately. c) Language, like other cognitive systems, is a network of nodes and links between them. d) Language structure is shaped by language use. 4

5. A constructional account of change Cxns have subcomponents. I used the six subcomponents in Croft’s (2001) Radical CxG: - form: syntax, morphology, phonology, - meaning: pragmatics, semantics, discourse functions. Any feature or subcomponent may be subject to change. 5

6. Distinguish degrees of abstraction: - constructs: tokens, usually utterances; they are the locus of innovation (but innovation ≠ change: change requires conventionalization), - micro-Cxns: types: individual conventionalized Cxns (e.g. BE going to, beside, a lot of), - (partial) schemas: types of conventionalized abstract patterns with open slots (e.g. binominal quantifiers [a lot of], pseudo-clefts [All (NP) V is X]). 6

7. Constructional changes and constructionalization Constructional changes (CCs) are changes that affect subcomponents of a Cxn. CCs may be form changes or meaning changes, but not both. Constructionalization (Cxzn) is the subset of CCs in which form new -meaning new (combinations) of signs are created. These new (combinations of) signs are created through a sequence of small-step neoanalyses of form or meaning (CCs). 7

8. Grammatical constructions and grammatical constructionalization Grammatical constructions (GCxns) are procedural and non-referential: they signal linguistic relations, perspectives, deictic orientation (Diewald 2011), the “glue” of language (Von Fintel 1995), e.g.: -indexicality (tense, definiteness), -information-structure (topic, focus), -argument-structure (case), -temporal phase (aspect), -speaker stance (metatextual markers). 8

9. GCxzn is the development of (mostly) procedural form new -meaning new (combinations) of signs. What is important is output, not input (see also Joseph 2001 on Gzn as result). Output distinguishes GCxzn from lexical and intermediate Cxzn. GCxzn encompasses Gzn, but extends beyond what is traditionally thought of as Gzn. 9

10. CCs prior to Cxzn are “incremental adjustments” (Hoffmann & Trousdale 2011: 13) that enable Cxzn (see Diewald’s 2002 pragmatic and morphosyntactic “critical” contexts for Gzn [but in the constructional framework they are not restricted to GCxn]). They do not result in a new node in the network. Cxzn, in this case GCxzn, is equivalent to Heine’s (2002) “switch” contexts and Diewald’s “isolating” contexts (again, in the constructional framework, they are not limited to GCxzn). In Cxzn, a new node in the network is formed. 10

11. CCs post Cxzn may allow for: - increase in type-Cxns (host-class expansion), - increase in token frequency, - reduction of form. It therefore goes beyond Heine’s “conventionalizing” contexts, since conventionalization is built into Cxzn in the present model. Again, no new nodes in the network are formed. 11

12. The “feeding” model of the relationship between CCs and Cxzn can therefore be elaborated as: (1) PreCxzn CCs(“critical” adjustments)  Cxzn (“switch”; new node  in network) PostCxzn CCs(expansions, e.g. host-class; form reductions) 12

13. Example: (2)Motion expression go evidenced in ME: PreCxzn CCsUse in specific contexts  CxznDevelopment as member of AUX in 17thC  PostCxzn CCsUse - as member of AUX with expanded set of Vs from 17thC, -in “expletive” raising Cxns from18thC, -as reduced to BE gonna by 20thC 13

14. Two main views of Gzn A.The tradition of “grammaticalization as increased reduction and dependency” (GIRD), e.g. Lehmann (1995), Haspelmath (2004), e.g.: (3) a.Lat. cantare habeo 'sing:INF have:1sg' > Fr. chanterai 'sing:FUT:1sg’ (Fleischman 1982: 71). b.Old Hungarian vila béle ‘world core/ guts:directional’ > vilagbele ‘world into’ > világba (inflected béle [N:case] > case marker ba (Anttila 1989: 149). c.([aI]) [ dont θɪŋk] > [dəʔɪŋk] in Berwick English (Pichler Forthc). 14

15. Focus typically on: - lexical > grammatical (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002; BUT see Meillet 1912 on syntacticization of Lat. “free word order” in French; Lehmann 2008 on biclausal contrastive clefts > monoclausal topic- comment). - atomic (simple) form as output. 15

16. B.The tradition of “grammaticalization as extension” (GE), e.g. “The process by which grammar is created” (Croft 2006: 366). Focus on expansion of: - semantic-pragmatic range, -syntactic range, -collocational (“host-class”) range (Himmelmann 2004). 16

17. Exs. are discourse-related as well as morphosyntactic, e.g.: (4)a.say (imperative of main verb say) > ‘suppose, for example’ (Brinton 2008: 89), b.in fact ‘in practice/reality’ > metatextual marker (self-corrective elaboration) (Traugott & Dasher 2002), c.I don’t think (matrix clause) > metatextual marker (hedge) (Pichler Forthc). 17

18. Two questions (Kiparsky 2012), cross-cut the GIRD and GE views: Q1How does form change? (e.g. main V > clitic > affix of special interest here). Q2How does meaning change (e.g. body part > relation marker, deontic > epistemic of special interest here). Much of the debate concerns assumptions about what grammar is, e.g. restrictive (no pragmatics) or not. Assumption in most work on Gzn: grammar is modular. 18

19. Modularity has led to arguments for distinguishing: - Gzn and pragmaticalization (Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Aijmer 1996), - “thetical grammar” and “syntactic grammar” (Kaltenböck, Heine & Kuteva 2011). It has also led to misinterpretations, e.g. claims that: - Lehmann is concerned only with form, - Bybee and Traugott are concerned only with meaning. 19

20. BUT: - Lehmann has bleaching of “a bundle of semantic features” in his integrity parameter (1995: 164), - Bybee is concerned with morphology, fusion (Bybee, Pagliuca & Perkins 1991), - Traugott is concerned with morphosyntax (Hopper & Traugott 2003, Traugott 2003). Because CxG is non-modular, these problems simply do not arise in the perspective I am proposing. Doing CxG we have to discipline ourselves to think always of morphosyntactic AND semantic/pragmatic change. 20

21. Back to GIRD and GE GIRD and GE are not orthogonal (Traugott 2010). Expansion is the logical conclusion of most of Lehmann’s (1995: 164) “parameters”. The parameters are a correlated set of paradigmatic and syntagmatic constraints (Lehmann 1995: Chapter 4): -integrity, -paradigmaticity, -paradigmatic variability, -structural scope, -bondedness, -syntagmatic variability. 21

22. “Integrity” is characterized as a bundle of semantic features, and possibly polysyllabic; the process of attrition leads to few semantic features (“bleaching”) and few segments, or monosegmental form. This is the language of loss. BUT an expression that is bleached is generalized (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994), and used in more contexts and more frequently (Bybee 2010). Bybee (2003, 2010) emphasizes increases in both token and type frequency. 22

23. A “bleached” future, e.g. BE going to, may be used in a paradigm and restricted to a fixed slot (Lehmann’s paradigmaticity and syntactic variability) but it is no longer constrained collocationally to Vs denoting actions one can go to do. Hence host-class and syntactic expansion (Himmelmann 2004). A bleached element loses content meaning but gains abstract meaning (Sweetser 1988; Brems 2011 refers to a “loss-and-gain model”); see Himmelmann’s pragmatic-semantic expansion. 23

24. Furthermore, expansion and reduction may be intertwined, e.g. bleaching (loss of lexical meaning) may lead to generalization and expanded use, which may in turn be followed by reduction of the signal. GCxzn shows only partial directionality, since after expansion, Cxns may be subject to reduction; also marginalization and obsolescence (cf. loss in late 20thC of must, may, etc. after expansion as auxiliaries, Leech, Mair, Hundt & Smith 2009). 24

25. Schematicity, productivity, compositionality From a CxG perspective, three correlates of GCxzn can be identified (Trousdale 2008, 2010): Increase in schematicity—expansion: -increased abstraction (includes bleaching; also paradigmatization, obligatorification), -development of schemas and subschemas. 25

26. Increase in productivity—expansion: Barðdal (2008: Chapter 2) provides a valuable overview of different uses of the term, including: -emergence of new type-Cxns (Bar ð dal 2008) = increase in type-frequency and host-class expansion (Himmelmann 2004); collostructional analysis (Hilpert 2008) is one way of operationalizing this, -increased token frequency. 26

27. Decrease in compositionality—reduction: Loss of e.g.: -match between meaning and form, see Francis & Michaelis (2003) on “mismatch”, -morphological boundaries, -segmental autonomy. Correlated with increased routinization, chunking, fixing. This is akin to and (part of) GIRD. 27

28. There is always the possibility of new alignments since: - increase in schematicity and in productivity involve expansion within a network of Cxns, - a subelement within a Cxn may be matched with a similar subelement in another Cxn. Therefore a GCxzn approach embraces exemplar pattern matching and analogy (understood as “analogization” (mechanism), distinct from “analogical thinking” (motivation), which is ambient in lg. use). A GCxzn approach suggests there is no such thing as “pure Gzn without analogy” (Lehmann 2004: 161; also Haspelmath 1998). 28

29. Lehmann’s exs. of “pure Gzn” include numeral an ‘one’ > indefinite article. While it is true that there was no article on which to model this, there were a number of predeterminers, e.g. sum ‘a certain’ that has some semantic affinities with which the meaning of an could have been aligned through analogical thinking. Rejection of the concept of “pure Gzn without analogy” accords with Fischer (2007, 2010), De Smet (2009). However, Fischer and De Smet distinguish analogy sharply from “reanalysis” (contrast De Smet 2012). I regard analogization as a type of neoanalysis (see also Kiparsky 2012) since it results in new structure. 29

30. Interim summary: Since CxG is all-inclusive (e.g. includes pragmatic markers), non-modular, it is consistent with a non- restrictive view of Gzn. Since usage-based CxG highlights sets, schemas, patterns, but also routinization, it is consistent with both GE and GIRD approaches. It is also consistent with and embraces exemplar pattern matching (analogical thinking and analogization). 30

31. Contexts for GCxzn A current given of most work on Gzn is that: “Everything that happens to the meaning of a gram happens because of the contexts in which it is used”. (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 297) Contexts are often referred to as “constructions”: “[I]t is the grammaticizing element in its syntagmatic context which is grammaticized. That is, the unit to which grammaticization properly applies are constructions, not isolated lexical items”. (Himmelmann 2004: 31; italics original) Here “construction” ≠ Cxn! 31

32. On some cases an extant Cxn is the context, e.g. binominal pseudo-partitive > quantifier. The oldest ex. in Eng. is deal (cf German Teil ‘part’): (5) Ic gife þa twa dæl of Witlesmere. I bequeath the two parts of Witlesmere (a1121 Peterb.Chron. [MED del n2, 1a]) A part implies a quantity; in the context of indefinite N and (often) a quantifying Adj, e.g. great, a deal of ‘a part of’ > ‘much’: (6) Jesu Maria what a deal of brine Hath washed thy sallow cheeks for Rosaline! (1595-6 Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet II.iii.69) 32

33. Other (partially analogous, certainly networked) binominals include: -quantifier a lot of, a bit/shred of (Traugott 2008a, b, Brems 2011), -measure a load/heap of (Brems 2010, 2011), -approximator a kind/sort of (Denison 2002, Brems 2011), but not a piece of. [[a N of] N]  [partitive] used repeatedly with quantifying implicatures depending on the semantics of N2 (preCxn CCs) > [a N of [N]]  [quantifier] (Cxzn). But not all Cxzn occurs in the context of extant Cxns. 33

34. Revisiting the origins of BE going to QDoes BE going to originate in a Cxn? The received wisdom is that: - Aux BE going to arose from motion BE going to, - Aux BE going to arose as a future. Garrett (2012: 66-70) challenges both claims on semantic grounds; proposes instead that it arose as an inceptive meaning ‘be about to’ < an extended inceptive use of go ‘turning or preparing to do an action’. 34

35. Focusing on the importance of thinking of Gzn in terms of context and of strings larger than single lexical items, Bybee (2006: 720) refers to a cognitive representation such as (7): (7) traveling journeying SUBJ (BE)returningto VERB going PURPOSE 35

36. Bybee says as the sequence with the lexical verb go occurred more frequently than with the other lexical verbs, the go variant “gradually gained in strength” and “a new construction was created” (2006: 720): (8) [SUBJECT + be going + to + VP] INTENTION, FUTURE Problem: this ignores contextual constraints on onset(Heine 2002, Diewald 2002), i.e. preCxzn- CCs. Until 17 th C there were three rare and “untypical”/ “critical” uses (Diewald 2002): 36

37. (i)The “progressive” be–ing. Rare in ME; not “a grammaticalised aspectual indicator in the verbal system till 1700” (Rissanen 1999: 216). But forms without be appear fairly frequently (a point Garrett 2012 emphasizes): (9) If I see my neighbor going toward the water to drown himself. (c1454 Pecock Fol. [MED]) (ii)Use in a purposive Cxn with the non-finite verb immediately following to. If a purposive with going to occurs, a directional usually intervenes between going and purposive (for) to, as in (9). 37

38. (iii) Use in passive. The first examples of a possible context for a future interpretation appear late 15 th C in passives (also several in 16 th C): (10)ther passed a theef byfore alexandre that was goyng to be hanged whiche saide … ‘a thief who was going to be hanged passed before Alexander and said …’ (1477 Mubashshir ibn Fatik, Abu al-Wafa’; Dictes or sayengis of the philosophhres [LION: EEBO]) 38

39. Suggestion (foreshadowed in Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994): BE going to originated in the use of the micro-Cxn go (i.e. the “lexical item”) unifying with a particular set of constructions, specifically: - PURPOSE, - PrePROGRESSIVE, - PASSIVE (optional). In other words, it arose out of constructs inheriting from an assembly of Cxns. 39

40. In this constellation of Cxns, - PURPOSE entailed intention of activity at a later time (relative, not deictic future), - PrePROGRESSIVE signaled ongoing activity, - PASSIVE demoted the agent of motion. Repeated use of this constellation led to: - coding of the pragmatics of intention to act at a later time (semantic expansion/schematization), - use in contexts where motion was unlikely or unnecessary (host-class expansion/productivity). 40

41. Early exs. of the constructionalized Aux are: (11) a. So, for want of a Cord, hee tooke his owne garters off; and as he was going to make a nooze (‘noose’), I watch’d my time and ranne away. (1611 Tourneur, The Atheist’s Tragedie [LION; Garrett 2012: 69]) b.and all this they did of purpose to … make me believe I was going to be racked again, to make me confess an untruth. (1632 Lithgow, Travels [Garrett 2012:70]) c.You hear that there is money yet left, and it is going to be layd out in Rattels … or some such like commodities. (1647 Field & Fletcher, The Honest Man’s Fortune [LION; Garrett 2012: 70]) 41

42. Evidence that BE going to was known to be temporal (relative tense) by mid 17thC: (12) a. About to, or going to, is the signe of the Participle of the future ….: as, my father when he was about [to] die, gave me this counsell. I am [about] or going [to] read. (1646 Poole, Accidence 26 [Danchev & Kytö 1994: 67]) b. going to die] that is, ready or in danger to die. (1639 ft. to And Esau said, Loe I am going to dye, Ainsworth Annotations upon the five books of Moses, the book of the Psalmes and the song of songs [Googlebooks]; thanks to Richard Futrell for this ex.) 42

43. In sum, the Cxn BE going to as relative, then deictic, future arose from the Cxn go used in a constellation of Cxns. There was no plausible motion-with-a-purpose Cxn which could be the source of BE going to future. Instead the were constructs with go that inherited from a range of Cxns in certain uses. 43

44. Conclusions The framework of GCxzn subsumes most of what has been studied in work on Gzn, whether GE or GIRD, but extends beyond it to outputs that may be complex and schematic (e.g. binominal quantifiers). GCxzn: akin to: -Heine’s (2002) “switch contexts”, Diewald’s (2002) “isolating contexts”, -“primary Gzn”, e.g. the first step in a change such as main verb > auxiliary > clitic > affix. 44

45. Pre-GCxzn: CCs akin to: -Diewald’s (2002) “untypical”, “critical contexts”: cumulations of distributional routines, preferences leading to selection of one alternative over another. Post-GCxzn: CCs akin to: -Himmelmann’s (2004) host-class, syntactic and semantic-pragmatic expansions (GE characteristics), -later, in many cases, Cxn-internal reduction and loss (GIRD-characteristics), e.g. later stages of changes such as main verb > auxiliary > clitic > affix. 45

46. The key contribution of a constructional perspective to earlier work on Gzn is that the theoretical architecture demands thinking in terms of both form and meaning. As a result, the “other side of the equation” that is always covertly present but backgrounded in work on Gzn as: - change primarily in form, or - change primarily in meaning must be treated equally. The gradient with lexical Cxzn can be accounted for. 46

47. Thank you for your attention! 47

48. Data sources CLThe Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Extended Version, compiled by Hendrik de Smet. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet.htm. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet.htm MED. The Middle English Dictionary. 1956-2001. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/.http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/ LION Literature on Line, http://lion.chadwyck.com.http://lion.chadwyck.com References Aijmer, Karin. 1996. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik, eds., Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, 1-47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2 nd ed. 48

49. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brems, Lieselotte. 2010. Size noun constructions as collocationally constrained constructions: Lexical and grammaticalized uses. English Language and Linguistics 14: 83-109. ----. 2011. Measure Noun Constructions; An Instance of Semantically-Driven Grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, eds., The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell. 49

50. ----. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711-733. ----. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. ----, William Pagliuca & Revere D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine, eds., Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: 17-58. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ----, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: U of Chicago Press. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. ----. 2006. Typology. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller, eds., The Handbook of Linguistics, 337-368. Oxford: Blackwell. Danchev, Andrei & Merja Kytö. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky, ed. Studies in Early Modern English, 59-77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 50

51. Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. ICCG2, University of Helsinki, Sept. 6-8. http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david- denison/papers/thefile,100126,en.pdf http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/david- denison/papers/thefile,100126,en.pdf De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728- 1755. ----. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601-633. Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In Wischer & Diewald, eds., 103-120. ----. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 450-461. New York: OUP. Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modern språkvetenskap 10: 76-93. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. 51

52. ----. 2010. An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In Stathi, Gehweiler & König, eds., 181-220. Fleischmann, Suzanne. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. Diachronic Evidence from Romance. Cambridge: CUP. Francis, Elaine J. & Laura A. Michaelis, eds. 2003. Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Garrett, Andrew. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Jonas, Whitman & Garrett, eds., 52-72. Goldberg, Adele A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP. Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22: 315-351. 52

53. ----. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon, eds., Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer & Diewald, eds., 83-101. ---- & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage- based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer, eds., What Makes Grammaticalization - A Look from its Fringes and its Components, 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2011. Variation, change, and constructions in English. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 1-23. 53

54. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP, 2 nd ed. Jonas, Dianne, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett, eds. 2012. Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: OUP. Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization”? In Lyle Campbell, ed. Grammaticalization: A critical Assessment, special issues of Language Sciences 23: 163-186. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852-897. Kiparsky, Paul. 2012. Grammaticalization as optimization. In Jonas, Whitman & Garrett, eds. 15-51. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. 54

55. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA. ----. 2004. Theory and method in grammaticalization. In Gabriele Diewald, ed., Grammatikalisierung. Special issue of Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32: 152-187. ----. 2008. In Elena Seoane & María José López-Couso, eds., in collab. with Teresa Fanego, Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Grammaticalization, 207-229. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Repr. in Antoine Meillet, Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 130-148. Paris: Champion, 1958. Pichler, Heike. Forthc. Formal Variability in Discourse- Pragmatics: i don’t know and i don’t think, innit? 55

56. Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass, ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. 3: 1476– 1776, 187-331. Cambridge: CUP. Stathi, Katerina, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König, eds. 2010. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Shelley Axmaker, Annie Jaisser & Helen Singmaster, eds., Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General Session and Parasession on Grammaticalization, 389-405. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008a. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gergard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra, eds., Variation, Selection, Development--Probing the Evolutionary Model of Language Change, 219-250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 56

57. ----. 2008b. The grammaticalization of NP of NP constructions. In Bergs & Diewald, eds., 21-43. ----. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik, eds., Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 269- 283. London: Continuum Press. ---- & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP. ---- & Graeme Trousdale. Forthc. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end of the impersonal construction. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka Minkova, eds., Studies in the History of the English Language IV: Empirical and Analytical Advances in the Study of English Language Change, 301-326. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 57

58. ----. 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Stathi, Gehweiler & König, eds., 51-72. Von Fintel, Kai. 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. NELS Proceedings 25: 175-189. Wischer, Ilse & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 58