It is well established that meanings associated with linguistic expressions evolve in systematic ways across time. We have little precise understanding, though, of why and how this happens. We know even less about its implications for our models of grammar, communication, and cognition. This article reviews developments and results from grammaticalization, typology, and formal semantics/pragmatics that can be brought to bear on addressing the problem of semantic change. It deconstructs the notion of grammaticalization paths and offers a set of questions for systematic investigation, following which I contextualize the small body of literature at the intersection of formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. The approach I take is programmatic rather than survey oriented, given the emergent nature of the domain of investigation and the limited body of existing literature that pertains directly to the questions raised here.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Andersen H. 2001. Actualization and the (uni)directionality. Actualization: Linguistic Change in Progress Andersen H. 225–48 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristar A. 1996. The relationship between dative and locative: Kuryłowicz’s argument from a typological perspective. Diachronica 13:207–24 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck S, Berezovskaya P, Pflugfelder K. 2009. The use of again in 19th-century English and Present Day English. Syntax 12:193–214 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benz A, Jäger G, van Rooij R. 2006. Game Theory and Pragmatics New York: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  5. Blevins J. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns Cambridge, UK: Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Blevins J. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theor. Linguist. 32:117–66 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blutner R. 2000. Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. J. Semant. 17:189–216 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blutner R. 2004. Pragmatics and the lexicon. Handbook of Pragmatics Horn L, Ward G. 488–514 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  9. Brinton LJ, Traugott EC. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee J. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. Perspectives on Grammaticalization Pagliuca W. 235–54 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee J. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure Tomasello M. 145–67 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee J. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82:711–33 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee J, Dahl Ö. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Stud. Lang. 13:51–103 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bybee J, Perkins R, Pagliuca W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark E. 1978. Locationals: a study of ‘existential,’ ‘locative,’ and ‘possessive’ sentences. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 4: Syntax, ed. J Greenberg, pp. 85–126. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  17. Comrie B. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Condoravdi C. 2009. The informativity of negative assertions and the rise of NPIs. Presented at 3rd Int. Conf. Mod. Greek Dialects Linguist. Theory, Patras, Greece
  19. Condoravdi C, Deo A. 2014. Aspect shifts in Indo-Aryan and trajectories of semantic change. Language Change at the Syntax–Semantics Interface Gianollo C, Jäger A, Penka D. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter In press [Google Scholar]
  20. Croft W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Dahl Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  22. Dahl Ö. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  23. Dahl Ö. 2001. Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure Bybee J, Hopper P. 2471–80 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  24. Deo A. 2009. Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: partitions as quanticational domains. Linguist. Philos. 32:475–521 [Google Scholar]
  25. Deo A. 2014. Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics Bowern C, Evans B. chapter 17. Oxford, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  26. Deo A. The semantic and pragmatic underpinnings of grammaticalization paths: the progressive and the imperfective. Semant. Pragmat. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  27. Devos M, van der Auwera J. 2013. Jespersen cycles in Bantu: double and triple negation. J. Afr. Lang. Linguist. 34:205–74 [Google Scholar]
  28. Eckardt R. 2001. Reanalysing selbst. Nat. Lang. Semant. 9:371–412 [Google Scholar]
  29. Eckardt R. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Franke M. 2009. Signal to act: game theory in pragmatics. PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam. 298 pp.
  31. Ginzburg J. 1995a. Resolving questions. I. Linguist. Philos 18:567–609 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ginzburg J. 1995b. Resolving questions. II. Linguist. Philos 18:459–527 [Google Scholar]
  33. Givón T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an archeologist’s field trip. Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society Adams D, Campbell MA, Cohen V, Lovins J, Maxwell E et al.394–415 Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc. [Google Scholar]
  34. Givón T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldsmith J, Woisetschläger E. 1982. The logic of the English progressive. Linguist. Inq. 13:79–89 [Google Scholar]
  36. Grice PH. 1967. Logic and conversation. The William James Lectures41–58 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Groenendijk J, Stokhof M. 1984. Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam. 566 pp .
  38. Harris AC, Campbell L. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Haspelmath M. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics 37:1043–68 [Google Scholar]
  40. Heine B. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Heine B. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Heine B. 2003. Grammaticalization. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics Joseph B, Janda R. 575–601 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  43. Heine B, Claudi U, Hünnemeyer F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Hopper P. 1998. Emergent grammar. The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 1: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure Tomasello M. 155–75 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  45. Hopper PJ, Traugott EC. 2003. Grammaticalization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Horn L. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications Schiffrin D. 11–42 Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Horn L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Horn L. 2005. Current issues in neo-Gricean pragmatics. Intercult. Pragmat. 2:191–204 [Google Scholar]
  49. Horn L, Abbott B. 2012. <the, a>: (in)definiteness and implicature. In Reference and Referring, ed. W Kabasenche, M O’Rourke, M Slater, pp. 325–56. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  50. Jäger G. 2007. Evolutionary game theory and typology: a case study. Language 83:74–109 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jäger G, Rosenbach A. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theor. Linguist. 34:85–113 [Google Scholar]
  52. Janda R. 2001. Beyond “pathways” and “unidirectionality” on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Lang. Sci 23:265–340 [Google Scholar]
  53. Jespersen O. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages Copenhagen: Luno [Google Scholar]
  54. Joseph B. 2001. Is there such a thing as grammaticalization?. Lang. Sci 23:163–86 [Google Scholar]
  55. Keenan EL. 2002a. An historical explanation of some binding thoretical facts in English. The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory Moore J, Polinsky M. 152–89 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  56. Keenan EL. 2002b. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. Studies in the History of English: A Millennial Perspective Minkova D, Stockwell R. 325–55 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  57. Keller R. 1989. Invisible-hand theory and language evolution. Lingua 77:113–27 [Google Scholar]
  58. Keller R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language Oxford, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  59. Kiparsky P. 2006. The amphichronic program vs. evolutionary phonology. Theor. Linguist. 32:217–36 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kiparsky P, Condoravdi C. 2006. Tracking Jespersen’s cycle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, ed. M Janse, BD Joseph, A Ralli. Mytilene, Greece: Doukas. http://web.stanford.edu/∼kiparsky/Papers/lesvosnegation.pdf .
  61. Kirby S. 1999. Function, Selection and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Kirby S. 2001. Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure—an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 5:102–10 [Google Scholar]
  63. Levinson S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  64. Lewis D. 1969. Convention Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  65. Martinet A. 1962. A Functional View of Language London: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
  66. Mattausch J. 2004. On the optimization and grammaticalization of anaphora. PhD thesis, Humboldt Univ., Berlin. 185 pp .
  67. Maynard Smith J, Price G. 1973. The logic of animal conflict. Nature 146:15–18 [Google Scholar]
  68. Merin A. 1996. Formal semantic theory and diachronic data: a case study in grammaticalization. Arbeitsbericht SFB 340, no. 75, Univ. Stuttgart
  69. Mossé F. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique Paris: Klincksieck [Google Scholar]
  70. Newmeyer F. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Lang. Sci 23:187–229 [Google Scholar]
  71. Ohala J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes Breivik LE, Jahr EH. 173–98 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  72. Ohala J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives Jones C. 237–78 London: Longman [Google Scholar]
  73. Parikh P. 2001. The Use of Language Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  74. Paul H. 1888. Principles of the History of Language, transl. HA Strong London: Lowrey & Co. (From Ger.) [Google Scholar]
  75. Portner P. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguist. Philos. 26:459–510 [Google Scholar]
  76. Ramat P. 1992. Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:549–60 [Google Scholar]
  77. Roberts C. 1996. Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Ohio State Univ. Work. Pap. Linguist. 49:91–136
  78. Schaden G. 2012. Modelling the aoristic drift of the present perfect as inflation: an essay in historical pragmatics. Int. Rev. Pragmat 4:261–92 [Google Scholar]
  79. Shepherd SC. 1982. From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. A Ahlqvist, pp. 316–23. Amsterdam: Benjamins
  80. Smith K, Kirby S, Brighton H. 2003. Iterated learning: a framework for the emergence of language. Artif. Life 9:371–86 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stalnaker R. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. Semantics and Philosophy Munitz MK, Unger P. 47–62 New York: N.Y. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  82. Stalnaker R. 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. P Cole, pp. 315–32. New York: Academic
  83. Stassen L. 2009. Predicative Possession Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  84. Traugott E. 1980. Meaning change in the development of grammatical markers. Lang. Sci 2:44–61 [Google Scholar]
  85. Traugott E. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic–pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics Lehmann WP, Malkiel Y. 245–71 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  86. Traugott E. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65:31–55 [Google Scholar]
  87. Traugott E. 1999. The role of pragmatics in semantic change. Pragmatics in 1998: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference Verschueren J. 293–102 Antwerp: Int. Pragmat. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  88. Traugott E. 2001. Legitimate counterexamples to unidirectionality. Presented at Univ. Freiburg, Oct. 17. http://www.stanford. edu/∼traugott/papers/Freiburg.Unidirect.pdf
  89. Traugott E, Dasher RB. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  90. Traugott E, König E. 1991. The semantics–pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. Approaches to Grammaticalization Traugott E, Heine B. 1189–218 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  91. Traugott EC. 2011. Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization Heine B, Narrog H. 401–12 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Trivers R. 2011. The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception New York: Basic [Google Scholar]
  93. van Rooij R. 2004a. Evolution of conventional meaning and conversational principles. Synthese 139:331–66 [Google Scholar]
  94. van Rooij R. 2004b. Signalling games select Horn strategies. Linguist. Philos. 27:493–527 [Google Scholar]
  95. von Fintel K. 1995. The formal semantics of grammaticalization. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society Beckman JN. 2175–98 Amherst: Univ. Mass. Dep. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  96. Vossen F, van der Auwera J. 2014. The Jespersen cycles seen from Austronesian. The Diachrony of Negation Mosegaard MB, Visconti J. 47–84 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  97. Weinreich U, Labov W, Herzog MI. 1968. Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change Austin: Univ. Tex. Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Yanovich I. 2013. Four pieces for modality, context and usage. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA. 269 pp .
  99. Yu A. 2010. Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals’ “autistic” traits: implications for models of sound change. PLOS ONE 5:e11950 [Google Scholar]
  100. Zipf GK. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error