Table Of ContentLanguage Usage and Language Structure
Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs 213
Editors
Walter Bisang
(main editor for this volume)
Hans Henrich Hock
Werner Winter
De Gruyter Mouton
Language Usage
and Language Structure
Edited by
Kasper Boye
Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-021917-3
e-ISBN 978-3-11-021918-0
ISSN 1861-4302
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Language usage and language structure / edited by Kasper Boye,
ElisabethEngberg-Pedersen.
p.cm.(cid:2)(Trendsinlinguistics:Studiesandmonographs;v.213)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-3-11-021917-3(hardcover:alk.paper)
1. Structural linguistics. 2. Language and languages (cid:2) Usage.
I.Boye,Kasper,1972(cid:2) II.Engberg-Pedersen,Elisabeth,1952(cid:2)
P146.L368 2010
410.118(cid:2)dc22
2009051323
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailedbibliographicdataareavailableintheInternetathttp://dnb.d-nb.de.
”2010WalterdeGruyterGmbH&Co.KG,Berlin/NewYork
Printing:Hubert&Co.GmbH&Co.KG,Göttingen
(cid:3)Printedonacid-freepaper
PrintedinGermany
www.degruyter.com
Table of Contents
Introduction vii
Usageandstructure:Thecaseofclausalcomplementation
What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar:
A critique of Thompson’s analysis of object complements
Frederick J. Newmeyer 3
Usage, structure, scientific explanation, and the role of abstraction,
by linguists and by language users
ArieVerhagen 45
Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical
status
Kasper Boye 73
Theriseofstructure
How not to disagree: The emergence of structure from usage
Ronald W. Langacker 107
Paradigmatic structure in a usage-based theory of grammaticalisation
Lars Heltoft 145
Where do simple clauses come from?
T. Givo´n 167
Structure,usageandvariation
Alternative agreement controllers in Danish: Usage or structure?
Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen and Mads Poulsen 205
vi TableofContents
Schmidt redux: How systematic is the linguistic system if variation is
rampant?
Dirk Geeraerts 237
More tiles on the roof: Further thoughts on incremental language
production
J. Lachlan Mackenzie 263
Reconciling structure and usage: On the advantages of a dynamic,
dialogic conception of the linguistic sign
Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen 295
Methodology
Ten unwarranted assumptions in syntactic argumentation
William Croft 313
Subject index 351
Introduction
During most of the 20th century, the classical Saussurean distinction between
languageuseandlanguagestructureremaineduntranscendableinmuchlinguis-
tictheory.Thedominantview,propagatedinparticularbygenerativegrammar,
wasthattherearestructuralfactsandusagefacts,andthatinprinciplethefor-
merare independent of, and can be described in complete isolation from, the
latter. With the appearance of functional-cognitive approaches on the scene,
this view has been challenged. Language must be understood basically as a
communicativeandcognitivephenomenon,itisargued,andlanguagestructure
can thus only be understood in terms of cognitive and social-communicative
restrictionsonlanguageuse.Thatis,structurecanonlybeunderstoodasusage-
based.
Fortwo reasons time is ripe for afocused study of the interaction between
usageandstructure.Within thegenerativecamptheviewofstructureasusage
basedhasinspiredamoreexplicitandprecisedescriptionofthestatusofusage
(Newmeyer1998, 2003, this volume).Within the functional-cognitive campit
has blurred the status of structure. Perhaps because functionalists and cogni-
tivistshavehadtoposition themselvesinrelationtogenerativegrammar,some
have emphasized the role of usage facts to the extent that structure is largely
ignored.Theyhavefavouredattestedinstancesofactuallinguisticcommunica-
tionastheirempiricalsource,andtheyhavepaidspecialattentiontophenomena
inwhichthe roleoflanguageuse cannotsoeasilybedismissed. Butmoreim-
portantly,agroupofscholars,withP.J.HopperandS.A.Thompsonascentral
figures,havestressedonatheoreticalleveltheontologicalprimacyofusageto
a degree where at least under one interpretation it seems that structure is dis-
cardedasanepiphenomen(e.g.Hopper1998,Thompson2002; cf.Langacker,
thisvolume,fordetaileddiscussion).Structure,theyclaim,isnotaprerequisite
for linguistic communication, but rather a constantly emerging by-product of
thenegotiation offormandmeaningincommunicativeinteraction.
However, accounts of language use, language acquisition and language
change are impossible without an assumption about what it is that is being
used, acquired, or subjected to change.And moremoderatefunctionalists and
cognitive functionalists recognizeboth structural facts andusagefacts asgen-
uinefactscentraltotheunderstandingoflanguage.Still,thelinguisticliterature
thatsharesthispositiondoesnotaboundwithexplicit,precisecharacterizations
of the relationship between usage and structure. Indeed, it seems fair to say
thatthevisibility ofHopperandThompson’sextremepositioninthelinguistics
landscapeis aresultofthefactthatmostfunctionally andcognitively oriented
viii Introduction
linguists haveprioritizedotherissuesoverandbeyondtherelationshipbetween
usageandstructure.
PeterHarderisamongthefewwhohaveplacedtheissuehighontheagenda
(e.g.Harder1996, 2003, 2008).While he takesausage-basedapproach tothe
study of language, he does not do so in the sense that he conceives of usage
factsastheonlyimportantfacts.Heconceivesofusagefactsastheontologically
and hence theoretically, methodologically and analytically basic level. But he
also emphasizes that linguistic structure is a phenomenon in its own right. In
hisview,structureisusage-basedinthesensethatitisdistilled outofprevious
actsofusage,but unlikeepiphenomenait hascausalforceinthat it constrains
subsequent actsofusage.
The present volume is dedicated to Peter Harder on the occasion of his 60th
birthday. It brings scholars together fromdifferent theoretical positions to ad-
dress theoretical and methodological aspects ofthe relation between language
useandlinguisticstructure.Thecontributorsdifferwithrespecttohowtheycon-
ceiveofthis relationand, morebasically, with respectto howthey conceiveof
linguisticstructure.Whattheyhaveincommon,however,isthattheyrecognize
structure and usage as non-reducible linguistic phenomena and take seriously
thechallengetodescribetherelationbetweenthem.
The first part of the volume is concerned with one of the central topics in
the recent discussion of the relationship between usage and structure: clausal
complementation.
Two papers deal with the use and structural properties of complement-
takingpredicatessuchasthink.F.J.NewmeyeraddressesS.A.Thompson’s2002
analysis accordingto whichcomplement-taking predicatesarenotsubordinat-
ing predicatesbut ratherpartof epistemic/evidential/evaluative fragmentsthat
must beunderstood as combining with mainclauses ratherthan with subordi-
nate clauses. In a study of conversational data comparable to those on which
Thompson bases her analysis, Newmeyer first criticizes Thompson’s analysis
andarguesthatsuchdatainfactstronglysupporttheconceptionofcomplement
clauses as subordinate. Subsequently, he presents arguments against Thomp-
son’sandothers’viewofgrammarasconsisting entirelyofformulasandfrag-
ments.NewmeyerendorsestheanalysisproposedinBoyeandHarder2007that
complement-taking predicates like think have two structurally distinguishable
variants:alexicalandagrammaticalone.HealsoagreeswithBoyeandHarder
that the diachronic relation between the two variants can only be understood
if the discourse prominence of I think in actual communication is taken into
account.Buthemaintainsthatwhilegrammaticalstructureisshapedbyusage
Introduction ix
phenomena, usage-based generalizations cannot play any direct role in gram-
maticalanalysis.
A.VerhageninturnaddressesNewmeyer’sstudyinthepresentvolume.Af-
tergivinganoverviewofrecentcontributionstothestudyofcomplementation,
Verhagensetsout todemonstratethatfullcommitmenttosomeformofgram-
maticalautonomyiscompatiblewithaviewofusageasontologicallybasic.Ina
critiqueofNewmeyer’sposition,hearguesthatdistributional testscannotstand
aloneingrammaticalanalysis,andthatNewmeyerinhiscritiqueofThompson
(2002),aswellasinhisargumentationinsupportoftheanalysisofcomplement-
taking predicates as subordinating, jumps to unwarranted abstractions. Rather
thanananalysisintermsofsharedabstractstructures,Verhagenemphasises,the
factspertainingtocomplementationsuggestausage-basedanalysisintermsof
ahierarchically organized network of structures in which some cases of com-
plementation figure on levels of relatively concrete, idiosyncratic constructs.
Whetherornotdifferentconcreteconstructsgiverisetoanabstractioninterms
ofa shared structural template is conditioned by usage.While structure is au-
tonomous in the sense that it has properties that are not found in usage, these
structuresmuststillultimately beexplainedintermsofusage.
K.Boye’scontribution is relatedto bothNewmeyer’sandVerhagen’s.Boye
deals with the usage and structural properties of raising verbs and auxiliaries.
Hefirstpointsoutthatthedistinctionbetweenraisingverbsandauxiliariesisnot
clearintheliterature,andthenpresentsevidencethatthereisastructuralsimi-
laritybetweentheconstructions inwhichthetwo classesofexpressions occur.
Hethengoesontoshow,however,thatthissimilaritynotwithstanding,adistinc-
tioncanbemadewhichmirrorsthedistinctionbetweenlexicalandgrammatical
complement-takingpredicatesproposedinBoyeandHarder2007.Bothdistri-
butionalfactsandfactspertainingtodiscourseprominencesupportadistinction
betweenraisingverbsaslexicalexpressionsandauxiliariesasgrammaticalex-
pressions.InananalysisintendedtocapturebothsetsoffactsBoyearguesthat
whileraisingverbsarecodedaspotentiallydiscursivelyprimary,auxiliariesare
coded as necessarily secondary.The analysis goes with a functional theory of
grammatical status which manifests the view that structure is distilled out of
usage,butstill,assoonasithasappeared,isalinguisticphenomenoninitsown
right.
Thechaptersinthesecondpartofthevolumeareallconcernedwiththerise
ofstructure.
R.W. Langacker takes his point of departure in pervasive conceptions of
usage and structure.These conceptions lead to a conflict between approaches
to language which focus on usage and approaches which focus on structure –
roughly,theconflictbetweenfunctionalandformalapproaches.Fromausage-
x Introduction
based perspective Langacker suggests an account that reconciles usage with
structure,aswellascognitivewithsocialaspectsoflanguage.Acentralpointis
thatstructureisconceivedofasadynamicphenomenon.Itconsists inpatterns
of processing activity that are established and maintained through abstraction
frominstancesoflinguistic activityoccurringinsocialinteractions.Langacker
characterizeshisaccountassteeringamiddlecoursebetweengenerativegram-
mar’sviewofstructureasastable,enduringanddiscretelyboundedobject,and
thefullrejectionofthisview.Itallowshimtodescribeinaprecisewayinwhich
senseonecanappropriatelytalkabout‘thestructureoflinguistic expressions’,
‘a language’, ‘the structure of a language’, and ‘the emergence of structure
throughusage’.
L.Heltoftdealswithlanguagechangeasreanalyses.Heemphasizesthatlin-
guisticusagepresupposestheexistenceofanorganisedsigninventorysharedby
those participating in using the language. Hence usage-based grammarsmust
include levels of structure to account for what a linguistic community has in
common. Language changes are initiated in usage as (faulty) hypotheses that
becomeadoptedby(partsof)alinguistic communityashypothesesaboutwhat
theactualutteranceisaninstanceof,i.e.structure.Heltoftclaimsthatgrammat-
icalstructureisorganisedaccordingtosimilarprinciples acrossthetraditional
divisionsofmorphology,syntaxandsemantics,andhesuggestsarevivalofthe
conceptofaparadigmonasemanticbasis.Notonlymorphology,butalsoword
order and constructional syntax can be approached in terms of content-based
paradigms.Manyinstancesofchangesinthedistributionandrangeofconstruc-
tions:extensions, restrictionsandeventheirwitheringaway,canbeunderstood
asadaptations tocontentchangesatthestructurallevel.
InhiscontributionT.Givo´nfocusesontheontogeneticandpossibly phylo-
genetictransitionfromsingle-wordutterancestomulti-wordclauses.Heinves-
tigateswhathecallsverb-less–orscattered–clauses,i.e.nominalconstructions
outsidetheintonationcontourofaverb.Suchconstructionsareaswell-governed
asnominalzeroanaphora.Thephenomenonisshowntobefrequentinoralnar-
rative,secondlanguagepidgin,Broca’saphasicspeechandearlychildlanguage.
Analysis of these types of language use gives rise to the claim that languages
have two processing modes, one – the grammatical mode corresponding to
Chomsky’scompetence–withnominal’sunderthesameintonation contouras
the licensing verb, and one – the pre-grammatical mode – with the nominal
argumentsplacedundertheirownseparateintonation contour.Inthecourseof
childhood thelatterturnsintotheformerbycombinationorsynthesis inapro-
cessoftransferringinformationfromtheadjacentcontexttoanexplicitlycoded
verbalclause,possibly reflectingthedevelopmentfromsingle-word utterances
tomulti-wordclausesinphylogeny.
