2025/12/10 by Bernd Heine, Debra Ziegeler, Carmelo Alessandro Basile +1 · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation #Linguistics and language evolution #Swearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
paper · doi:10.1075/sl.25024.hei
openalex created_date 2025/12/10 · openalex publication_date 2025/12/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
Abstract In some work based on the framework of Diachronic Construction Grammar, a branch of Construction Grammar (e.g. Croft 2001 ; Goldberg 2006 ), it has been argued that phenomena traditionally classified as instances of grammaticalization should not be considered as belonging to a distinct field of its own within historical linguistics. Rather, it is proposed that such phenomena are more appropriately taken care of within Diachronic Construction Grammar. The present paper takes issue with this stance, arguing that grammatical change as it is the subject of grammaticalization theory has a unique place within the field of diachronic linguistics. The paper focuses on a study by Gildea & Barðdal (2023) , which represents the most pronounced position on this issue within Diachronic Construction Grammar.