Change through recombination: blending and analogy

Abstract Blending is generally seen as a marginal source of linguistic innovations in language change. However, the impact of blending is likely underestimated, because blends may occur under the guise of analogical extension. In such cases, blending is covert and cannot be detected synchronically in the innovative structure. In this paper, the relation between analogy and blending is analyzed. Next, the role of covert blending is demonstrated in two diachronic case studies. The first case study addresses the use of the English verbs want and need in the Passival Participle Construction (e.g. you need your eyes testing ). The pattern could have analogically extended from perception verbs, as claimed by Visser (1963–1973) , but distributional, chronological and semantic evidence indicate that the extension happened through blending between two other constructions, the Passival Gerund Construction ( your eyes need testing ) and the Object Complement Construction ( you need your eyes tested ). The second case study deals with the development of the Dutch downtoner allesbehalve (‘not at all’). It is shown that once allesbehalve had adopted the syntactic status of a downtoner it spread to new syntactic contexts. Since this brings allesbehalve in line with other downtoners, the process can be seen as an instance of analogical extension. Quantitative evidence, however, shows that the developing syntactic behaviour of the downtoner continues to be influenced by the syntax of its composing elements, alles (‘everything’) and behalve (‘except’). Change is thus partly driven by blending between the downtoner and its own historical source. In both cases, apparent analogical extensions hide an underlying blend. These findings show that blending may be more pervasive than generally recognized, supplementing rule-based strategies for coining new utterances.

[1]  J. Aitchison Language Change: Progress or Decay? , 1981 .

[2]  Thomas E. Murray,et al.  At the Intersection of Regional and Social Dialects: The Case of Like + Past Participle in American English , 2002 .

[3]  Laura A. Michaelis,et al.  Optimization via syntactic amalgam: Syntax-prosody mismatch and copula doubling , 2005 .

[4]  William Croft,et al.  Explaining language change : an evolutionary approach , 2000 .

[5]  Hendrik De Smet Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation , 2012 .

[6]  Nikolas Gisborne,et al.  The Event Structure of Perception Verbs , 2010 .

[7]  Raimo Anttila,et al.  Historical and comparative linguistics , 1989 .

[8]  Lyle Campbell,et al.  Historical Linguistics: An Introduction , 1991 .

[9]  Elizabeth Coppock,et al.  Alignment in Syntactic Blending , 2006 .

[10]  Hans Noel,et al.  Serving Two Masters , 2012 .

[11]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense , 1982 .

[12]  M. H. Kelly,et al.  To “brunch” or to “brench”: some aspects of blend structure , 1998 .

[13]  I. Lehiste,et al.  Principles and Methods for Historical Linguistics , 1979 .

[14]  Gerald Leonard Cohen,et al.  Syntactic blends in English parole , 1987 .

[15]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[16]  H. D. Smet The course of actualization , 2012 .

[17]  Elizabeth Coppock,et al.  Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends , 2010 .

[18]  April M. S. McMahon,et al.  Understanding language change: Frontmatter , 1994 .

[19]  Thomas Egan,et al.  Non-Finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and -Ing Clauses in English , 2008 .

[20]  Mark Hale,et al.  Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method , 2007 .

[21]  Andrew L. Sihler Language History: An introduction , 2000 .

[22]  Hendrik De Smet Grammatical interference: subject marker for and phrasal verb particle out , 2010 .

[23]  D. Bolinger Syntactic Blends and Other Matters , 1961 .

[24]  Robert Dixon,et al.  A Semantic Approach to English Grammar , 2005 .

[25]  S. Gries Shouldnt it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English , 2004 .

[26]  Thomas E. Murray,et al.  Need + Past Participle in American English , 1996 .

[27]  K Bock,et al.  That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blendsß , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[28]  Klaus-Uwe Panther Motivation in Language , 2012 .

[29]  S. Kemmer Schemas and lexical blends , 2003 .

[30]  Jan-Ola Östman,et al.  Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch , 2004 .

[31]  D. Fay,et al.  Substitutions and splices: a study of sentence blends , 1981 .

[32]  G. Fauconnier,et al.  The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind''s Hidden Complexities. Basic Books , 2002 .

[33]  Thomas Berg Linguistic Structure and Change: An Explanation from Language Processing , 1998 .

[34]  Alice C. Harris,et al.  Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective , 1995 .

[35]  M. Garrett Levels of processing in sentence production , 1980 .

[36]  T. Berg Productive and perceptual constraints on speech-error correction , 1992, Psychological research.

[37]  H. H. Hock Principles of historical linguistics , 1986 .

[38]  Frederik Theodoor Visser,et al.  An Historical Syntax of the English Language , 2002 .

[39]  Terry Crowley,et al.  An introduction to historical linguistics , 1987 .

[40]  Hendrik De Smet,et al.  Serving two masters: Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams , 2013 .

[41]  Hendrik De Smet,et al.  English -ing-clauses and their problems: The structure of grammatical categories , 2010 .