Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:54:13.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The aggregate and the individual: thoughts on what non-alternating authors reveal about linguistic alternations – a response to Petré

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

LAUREN FONTEYN
LAUREN FONTEYN*
Affiliation:
English Linguistics I, University of Manchester, Linguistics and English Language (LEL), School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UKlauren.fonteyn@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In one way or another, historical linguists have always been aware of the limitations inherent to working with linguistic data from bygone ages. One of the most substantial limitations, as Petré points out, is that all speakers of a historical variant of a language are unavailable for psycholinguistic study, essentially leaving researchers with their written records as the sole data source. As such, historical linguists often find themselves taking the role of corpus linguists, trying to understand the workings of a language ‘by studying aggregate data that pools the productions of many speakers and writers – often across different media, genres, registers, and even across different time periods’ (Arppe et al.2010: 3). As Petré points out, the practice of studying language on this aggregate level has dominated the methodologies in historical linguistic studies, and very little attention is paid to the individual level.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 251 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5 (1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Davidson, Donald J. & Bates, Douglas. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 390–412.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 55–102.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, D'Hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren & Goethem, Kristel Van. Forthcoming. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1996. The gerund in Early Modern English: Evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Folia Linguistica Historica 17, 97–152.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerund. Diachronica 21 (1), 5–55.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren. 2016. Categoriality in language change: The case of the English gerund. PhD thesis, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Smet, Hendrik De & Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2015a. What it means to verbalize: The changing discourse functions of the English gerund. Journal of English Linguistics 43 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren, Heyvaert, Liesbet & Maekelberghe, Charlotte. 2015b. How do gerunds conceptualize events? A diachronic study. Cognitive Linguistics 26 (4), 583–612.Google Scholar
Friedman, Jerome H. 1984. A variable span smoother. Technical Report 5. Laboratory for Computational Statistics, Department of Statistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In MacWhinney et al. (eds.), 197–208.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jack, George. 1988. The origins of the English gerund. Nowele 12, 15–75.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Delfs, Lauren. 2004. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-1 (accessed 4 April 2017).Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice & Diertani, Ariel. 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE-RELEASE-1 (accessed 4 April 2017).Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 2014. Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22 (3), 397–421.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Ramoulin-Brunberg, Helena & Manilla, Heikki. 2011. The diffusion of language change in real time: Progressive and conservative individuals and the time depth of change. Language Variation & Change 23, 1–43.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2003. Is there semantics in all syntax? The case of accusative and infinitive constructions vs. that-clauses. In Rohdenburg, Günther & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 329–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & Byloo, Pieter. 2015. Competing modals: Beyond (inter)subjectification. Diachronica 32 (1), 34–68.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2008. Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Constructions and language change, 133–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Thomas C. & Kirby, Simon. 2010. Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 411–17.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A.. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85, 321–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar