The x factor uk download torrent

This version is a minor 'bug-fix' update to MacPostFactor v2. This version is huge! Donate to figure on the list! It's also packed with features and there are certainly some of them new features or refinements that I forgot to add in this changelog or that I grouped. This version contains a lot of bug fixes and some new features.

This version was the initial release of MCPF. Includes the following : - No more separate 'Install' partition. Add some verbosity to the install process for logs MacPostFactor v2. Designed to improve the performance and usability of OS X.

Improved compatibility with MS Office Enhanced VoiceOver reliability. More than emoji characters added. Issue related to JPEG preview resolved. Hard Disk Space: 9GB of free space required. Processor: Intel Pentium 4 or later. Version 2. Version 1. Macpostfactor Download Windows 10 Version 1. Over the past ten or so years, more and more work has adopted a construc- tional perspective on language change.

These studies focus on form-meaning pairings and their diachronic developments. The alignment between histori- cal linguistics on the one hand and Constructional Grammar on the other has become increasingly popular, and even though I welcome that development, it has always puzzled me a little bit. Construction Grammar represents a very different tradition than historical linguistics. It adopts a synchronic perspec- tive, it takes a cognitive, mentalist stance, and that is not the case for many historical approaches.

Work in language change always goes beyond a steady state. Historical linguistics also goes beyond the confines of a single human mind. If we want to talk about regularities and how languages change over decades, centuries, perhaps even millennia, then we are making generalizations that go beyond what happens in any single speaker or any single human mind.

Even though I have always been convinced that Diachronic Construction Grammar is a fascinating approach that has its justification, I have found it surprising that it turned out to be as popular as it has. What is so attractive about it? I can of course only speculate, but the best answer that I can give brings us back to basic idea 4 that I outlined earlier, the observation that constructions are typically unpredictable and idiosyncratic.

Nobody, I think, is more aware of the unruliness of language than historical linguists. Analysts of language change are very much aware that historical develop- ments often are unpredictable and idiosyncratic. In fact, there is a very nice quote by Paul Hopper and Elizabeth Traugott illustrating that very point. In their textbook on grammaticalization, they state that Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. Changes do not have to occur.

They do not have to go to comple- tion. In other words, they do not have to move all the way along a cline.

With regard to idiosyncrasies, Hopper and Traugott were construction gram- marians all along. The constructional way of thinking about language resonates with ideas that historical linguists had already entertained, specifically if they were working within a broadly functional framework. For them, it was more or less self-evident that language change is the sum of many constructions changing individually, often in unpredictable ways.

This contrasts with structuralist and generative perspectives, in which language change is seen as catastrophic and systemic, so that one change triggers another until the entire system revolves and changes.

I refer to the work of Bloomfield and Lightfoot , in this context. In contrast to these views, one might actually adopt the opinion that every construction has its own history, which in this strong form is probably not true.

It is tempting to think along these lines, but it is perhaps not quite what the constructional view implies. Remember that knowledge of language is conceived of as a network of symbolic units. Due to interconnections in the constructional network, changes in one construction can be thought to bring about changes in related constructions, but how exactly that works is some- thing to be figured out.

A more nuanced view of this could be captured by a slogan that I have tried to popularize. When you pinch the system on one end, it does not always extend at the other end, or vice versa. Linguistic systems are fluid and have some tolerance. Changing one part might have consequences, but it is not a zero-sum game. You have to maintain a kind of balance, a system where everything holds itself in place as the structuralist notion has it.

Change on the constructional view is not always systemic. Before I work out in more details what a constructional theory of language change looks like, I would like to point out a few issues that such a construc- tional theory does not cover. Let me tell you what it is not. There are several well-known phenomena in language change that do not, in my view, lend themselves particularly well to a constructional analysis, principally because they systematically affect many or even all constructions of a language.

The prime example of such a phenomenon would be regular sound change that affects all words in the language. Another example would be a massive loss of morphology due to language contact.

If two languages are coming into contact and large numbers of learn- ers acquire these languages, some of their morphological complexity is going to disappear. That is not something that would be specific to any one or two constructions, but rather, this happens across the board. Another example in English is there has been a syntactic change from head-final to head-initial across different phrase types.

Old English used to be head-final in verb phrases and in auxiliary phrases. In Present-Day English, these phrases are head-initial. This development is best accounted for by a generalization that affects more than just one construction. Another example is sociolinguistic change in response to extralinguistic developments, as for example dialect levelling in areas with increased speaker mobility.

What happens to the local variety once speakers are very mobile? These phenomena, I would argue, capture generalizations that hold across many different constructions. We could apply a constructional approach, but we would miss more insightful, broader generalizations. Diachronic Construction Grammar focuses on the developmental trajecto- ries of individual constructions where this is useful. This of course has been the focus of another theoretical approach to language change, namely gram- maticalization theory.

I would like to say a few words about that approach. What is different between Diachronic Construction Grammar and gram- maticalization theory? These two frameworks have a lot in common, and they are adopted by overlapping communities of researchers. Nonetheless, I find it useful to consider for a moment how the two frameworks differ from each other and what their respective aims are, because they are not quite identical. I take it that many of you in this room are broadly familiar with grammati- calization as a theory of how closed-class elements come into being.

For my purposes, I adopt the definition of grammaticalization that has been proposed by Paul Hopper and Elizabeth Traugott , who formulate it as the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain lin- guistic contexts to serve grammatical functions, and, once grammatical- ized, continue to develop new grammatical functions.

Lehmann 15 conceives of grammaticalization as a progressive development towards ever more compact linguistic structures. Syntactic structures have a tendency to fuse together through morphologization. Morphological structures blend into one another to form synthetic structures.

Eventually, parts of these structures may reduce to zero. The general appeal of grammaticalization theory, as I see it, is motivated by two factors. On the one hand, grammaticalization theory states broad empirical generalizations that account for lots of cases across many different languages. On the other hand, it makes testable predictions for data that we may come across in the future. This is already a point that sets grammaticalization theory apart from Diachronic Construction Grammar, which at this point has not been able to generate a system of testable hypoth- eses in quite the same way.

I have said that I view Diachronic Construction Grammar and grammati- calization theory as largely overlapping, but as not completely coextensive.

There are reasons to say that grammaticalization has a narrower scope than Diachronic Construction Grammar. Specifically, there are patterns of lexical- ization and lexical-semantic change that we would subsume under Diachronic Construction Grammar, but that are outside the scope of grammaticalization.

For example, there are some processes that never happen in grammaticaliza- tion, but that are common in lexical-semantic change, i.

There is further the phenomenon of amelioration in semantic change. It has acquired a more positive mean- ing. That is not the kind of meaning change that you see in grammaticalization. In many definitions of grammaticalization, there are differences, but many definitions exclude word order changes, which would of course instantiate change in the constructional network. One example of this concerns the loss of English V2 constructions, another concerns changes in argument structure, specifically the diachronic increase of transitive structures in English.

All of these examples suggest that the linguistic changes that grammaticalization focuses on form a subset of those that Diachronic Construction Grammar is concerned with. However, that is not the whole story. You can also make the opposite case, arguing that some aspects of grammaticalization go beyond changes in indi- vidual form-meaning pairings, so that grammaticalization could be said to have a wider scope than Diachronic Construction Grammar.

Let me give you two examples to illustrate this. One example comes from the work of Christian Lehmann , and it pertains to what he calls paradigmatization, which is the tendency of Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. That, if you like, is a generalization about developments that affect groups of constructions. Grammatical domains like case, person, number or tense tend to recruit a small group of closed-class elements into their service, and then these elements tend to express semantic oppositions, and they tend to converge in terms of their morphosyntactic behavior.

This happens in similar ways across different grammatical domains that have dif- ferent formal expressions across different languages. In other words, to say that we frequently observe paradigmatization in language change is to express a meta-generalization about how groups of constructions tend to change over time.

It is broader than analyzing the developmental trajectory of a single con- struction or group of constructions. There is another example that comes from a very different theoretical back- ground. One aspect in which it runs counter to the Lehmannian view is that Roberts and Roussou view syntactic scope increase as definitional for gram- maticalization. What they say is that grammaticalization involves syntactic reanalysis that assigns the grammaticalized form to a higher node in the syn- tactic structure.

An example for this would be the grammaticalization of lexical verbs into auxiliary verbs. When lexical verbs become auxiliaries, they are assigned to an operator position that sits up a little bit higher in the syntactic tree. Now you do not have to agree with any particular theoretical model of syntax to appre- ciate the generalization that is at stake. Across several different grammatical domains, across different construction types, we observe scope increase, and that will be a formal generalization that reaches across individual construc- tions and that expresses a more general property of grammaticalization.

Both the example of paradigmatization and the example of scope increase capture generalizations across many different constructions. All of these differences suggest that grammaticalization theory and Diachronic Construction Grammar are not quite the same, but it remains a given that grammaticalization theory has been gravitating towards a con- structional perspective over recent years.

This is the item-based view. The shift towards a constructional view has also been commented on by Joan Bybee , who has the following to say about it: The recent literature on grammaticalization seems to agree that it is not enough to define grammaticalization as the process by which a lexical item becomes a grammatical morpheme, but rather it is important to say that this process occurs in the context of a particular construction.

To sum this up, what is reflected in the changing definitions of Hopper and Traugott and in the quote by Bybee is that there is an increasing focus on changes that affect the syntagmatic axis of language during grammaticaliza- tion. This explains in part why grammaticalization theory has been aligning with Construction Grammar. There are, however, further differences that I find to be considerable. One of them being the fact that grammaticalization theory makes testable predic- tions.

I have been mentioning that fact. That is the idea that changes proceed in a very constrained way that is irreversible. Let me give you a non-linguistic example for unidirectionality. This morning at breakfast I had a bowl with yogurt with a little bit of jam on top.

If I stir the yogurt with a spoon, it will mix with the jam until I have a fairly homogeneous mixture. Let us say that I have been mov- ing the spoon towards the right. The mixing process is unidirectional, and grammaticalization theory holds that many processes of language change are actually like mixing yogurt with jam. They go into one direction, but not in the opposite one. Generalizations like the hypothesis of unidirectionality are one example where grammaticalization theory has a wider scope than Diachronic Construction Grammar, because the hypothesis applies to a broad range of constructions, not just a single one.

Diachronic Construction Grammar is concerned with many changes that are in fact bidirectional. For example, English gives its speakers the possibil- ity to use verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs. Another example would be analogical change.

Frequently analogical change turns an irregular form into a regular one. The verb weep in English forms the past tense with an irregular form wept, but you will find it used in a regularised way where Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. Importantly, analogical change does not always target the regular form that has the highest type frequency. Sometimes the target is a smaller class with a few highly salient members.

The verb sneak is regular, but speakers started to use an irregular past tense form snuck, using an analogy with verb forms such as strike and struck, stick and stuck as salient members of this irregular category. The third example is that in lexical semantic change, semantic narrowing coexists with semantic broadening.

Semantic narrowing is illustrated by the example of meat. The converse process is widening. The English noun dog referred to a specific breed of dog, now it refers to the entire species. In grammaticalization, we do not regularly see semantic narrowing, as items usually extend towards broader, more abstract meanings.

By contrast, in grammaticalization, developments are supposed to go in one direction only. This can be illustrated, for example, with the development of affixes that turn from independent words into structures that are dependent on a host structure. The hypothesis of unidirectionality states that independent elements lose in formal and semantic substance and turn into dependent elements, not the other way around.

That is why it is interesting to pay close attention to cases that seems to go against the overall tendency. There is an example that you are perhaps aware of, namely the use of the English suffix -ish as an independent word. Grammaticalization schol- ars would see this as an anomaly. It is not supposed to happen, but every now and again it does happen. Despite these counterexamples, grammaticalization theory incorporates the unidirectionality hypothesis as a way of making pre- dictions about unseen data.

In the framework of Lehmann, unidirectionality does not only apply to the development of suffixes out of independent words, but it actually reaches across a set of related properties of language.

Lehmann identifies six separate unidirectional processes that I will briefly present. Erosion means that as forms grammaticalize, they lose in substance and they become shorter.

Condensation means that grammaticalizing forms shrink with respect to their syntactic scope. The suffix -ly used to be an independent word, but now it just forms part of an adjective. The process of paradigmatiza- tion captures that as forms grammaticalize, they integrate themselves into a group of grammatical forms with similar properties.

Obligatorification means that strongly grammaticalized signs have to be used as a matter of convention. For example, in languages that have articles that are definite and indefinite, the speaker has to pick one, depending on the context. The speaker no longer has the freedom to include the article or leave it out.

Finally, fixation means that as a form grammaticalizes, speakers become increasingly constrained with regard to the position in the utterance where a sign can be used. Why am I going through all of this? My general point is that grammatical- ization theory proposes this elaborate system of interlocking continua, which are tied to very specific and strong empirical predictions. We expect lan- guage change to proceed along these lines, but not in the opposite direction. Diachronic Construction Grammar, by contrast, has up to this point not been able to generate a similar set of hypotheses that could be put to the test in a systematic fashion.

To bring my juxtaposition of the two frameworks to a close, what I want you to take away is that I see the two as closely related enterprises that show substantial overlap, but that also each have characteristics that are respectively their own.

With all of this in mind, let me now outline the project of Diachronic Construction Grammar in more positive terms. I will take as my starting point the basic idea that linguistic knowledge is to be conceived of as a large struc- ture network of form-meaning pairings. I would like to advance the view that Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. Knowledge of language, from the view of Construction Grammar, is a network of constructions. Language change, from the view of construction grammar, would be change that happens in that network.

In the next part of this lecture, I want to go over four aspects of that kind of change. First, how new constructions emerge or disappear. Second, how exist- ing constructions change in form and meaning. Third, how links in the network emerge or disappear. Fourth, how existing links in the network becomes stron- ger or weaker. I am going to start with the emergence of new constructions, which is undoubtedly what has captured most of the attention of researchers working in Diachronic Construction Grammar.

Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale have created a technical term that captures the emergence of constructions. It forms new type nodes, which have new syntax or morphology and new coded meaning, in the linguistic network of a pop- ulation of speakers.

We cannot make new symbols by adding just one part of their structure. It has to be both form and meaning. To help us understand this concept a little better, let me try to break down the definition into its component parts. For example, a lexical item may be extended to cover new semantic territory. An adjective such as sweet no longer refers to just to taste, but also to an emotional quality. According to Traugott and Trousdale, that is not constructionalization.

That is a semantic change. It could be a shortened pro- nunciation. The first variant has three syllables, the second one has only two syllables. According to Traugott and Trousdale , that would not be constructionalization. Now suppose that we have a form-meaning pair and that pair develops in such a way that at some point a new form develops, and simultaneously, there is also a new meaning that develops. Eventually, speakers come to perceive and use the pairing of the second form and the second meaning as a form-meaning pair of its own, separate from the first form-meaning pair.

There have been proposals to the effect that this process, constructionaliza- tion, should be equated with grammaticalization. What he says is this: In Construction Grammar constructions are by definition grammatical, so that the historical emergence of constructions amounts to becom- ing part of the grammar, and what better term to denote this than grammaticalization.

In that sense, grammar could be a term that stands for everything that a speaker knows, i. Still, I do not think it is helpful to say that in Construction Grammar, constructions are by definition grammatical. Not all constructions are grammatical. That term should be reserved for constructions that are advanced on the clines that grammaticalization research has worked out. Articles are grammatical because they are highly dependent on a host structure and because their use is obliga- tory.

Relative clauses are grammatical because they are syntactically complex and convey a very schematic kind of meaning. Lexical words like bicycle or lecture or bottle are constructions, but they are not grammatical constructions. In their book on constructionalization, Traugott and Trousdale make a distinction between two different types of constructionalization, one which they call lexical or contentful constructionalization, and another type that they call grammatical or procedural constructionalization.

Lexical construc- tionalization refers to the coinage of new lexical items, such as photobomb, twitterverse or Brexit. Lexical constructionalization typically starts with the instantaneous creation of a new form which is then gradually propagated in the speech community and which conventionalizes through usage over time.

By contrast, grammatical constructionalization concerns the emergence of new grammatical constructions. The constructions involve grammati- cal dependencies. They encode abstract meanings. They arrange themselves into paradigms.

Traugott and Trousdale identify three aspects of constructionaliza- tion that they view as central, and that allow them to distinguish between lexi- cal constructionalization and grammatical constructionalization. These three aspects concern the compositionality of a construction, the schematicity of a construction and the productivity of a construction. At the same time, there is an increase in schematicity. The overall construction is not just get, but it is rather get plus a slot for a verb in the infinitive.

There is an increase in productivity, meaning that as time goes on, we find more and more lexical verbs that enter the past participle slot, that are used with get in order to form an instance of the get-passive. For grammati- cal or procedural constructionalization, we have increases in schematicity and productivity and a decrease in compositionality.

Specifically, we have decreases for all three aspects, i. There is no strict compositionality, and there is no schematicity, as the meaning of Brexit is quite specific.

Traugott and Trousdale use these notions as a way of capturing the broad difference between grammar and lexis, which is a distinction that I think is important, even if it is not crisp and categorical, but rather non-discrete and gradual.

There are elements that are clearly lexical, like dog or friendly, which are contentful and which have specific meaning. There are grammatical ele- ments such as determiners, pronouns, auxiliaries or the ditransitive construc- tion, which clearly convey procedural meaning and which are discursively secondary. On this view, grammatical constructions convey a very specific type of meaning that can be called procedural.

This captures notions such as subject and object and their functions within Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. This means that how our inter- pretation of a lexical item depends on the grammatical context. This actually brings us back to the principle of coercion that I mentioned earlier this morn- ing. Putting it all together, we can circumscribe procedural meaning as meaning that corresponds to questions like Who did what to whom? Procedural meaning is notably more schematic than the meanings that are associated with lexical material.

Grammatical construc- tionalization in the sense of Traugott and Trousdale is concerned with the emergence of constructions in more abstract areas of linguistic structure that accommodate category schemas and constructional schemas. While this gives us a basic understanding of grammatical constructionalization, there is one more distinction that I need to introduce in this context, and that distinc- tion concerns two different types of grammaticalization.

So far, I have talked about grammaticalization in terms that presented it as a tendency towards increasingly compact linguistic structures from discourse to syntax to morphology, and eventually to zero. This is commonly called the view of grammaticalization as reduction. Grammaticalizing forms lose their autonomy, their complexity, their syntactic freedom and their phonetic sub- stance. This works very well for phenomena such as the creation of morpho- logical affixes out of formerly independent words, or for the reduction of the be going to construction into gonna.

Grammaticalization as reduction is essentially the view of grammaticaliza- tion that is presented by Christian Lehmann, with its six unidirectional pro- cesses that lead to increasingly compact and compressed structures. All of that works very well for the structures it has been intended to deal with. But there are other phenomena that we might want to call grammaticalization, but that do not fit into this view. There is a second type of grammaticalization running counter to the first one, and that type can be described in terms of expansion.

The gist of the matter is that not all grammaticalizing constructions become more fixed and integrated, lose in semantic substance, and decrease in syntactic scope. Some constructions show the exact opposite behavior. There are three phenomena Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. The term host-class expansion signifies that a grammaticalizing construc- tion over time increases its range of hosts, that is, the range of elements that co- occur with the construction.

Let me start with the English way-construction, as illustrated by He made his way through the room or He elbowed his way out of the subway. This construction has historically come to be used with an ever- greater range of verbs.

At first, it used to be restricted to verbs that relate to the laborious creation of a path. Now you can cheat your way into law school and sing your way into the charts.

The construction become more open to different kinds of verbal predicates. Another example are noun-participle compounds like doctor-recommended, child-tested or chocolate-covered. If we look at that kind of construction dia- chronically, we find that the number of participles occurring in that construc- tion has been on the increase.

Host-class expansion can also be observed on the syntactic level. The example that I can give you here are it-clefts in English, which used to be restricted to examples in which the focus phrase was a noun phrase: It was the butler who killed them. Increase of syntactic scope is what we observe when a grammaticalizing construction comes to modify increasingly larger syntactic units. Lehmann predicts that the exact opposite should happen.

Grammaticalizing units should decrease progressively in their syntactic scope, but we see the opposite with discourse markers that are based on adverbs, as for instance the word actually. Actually can be an adverb. I can ask Is this measure actually neces- sary, and in that sentence, actually has an adjective phrase in its scope.

In a sentence like They actually wanted to talk to you, actually has a verb phrase in its scope. In its use as a discourse marker or sentence adverbial, it has an entire utterance in its scope. This would be the case for examples such as Actually, this does not seem like a good idea. Actually has progressively increased the size of the syntactic contexts over which it has scope.

The same goes for the clause connector as long as, which used to be just a modifier for a noun phrase, as in We will do this for as long as a year. It is expanded into contexts where it has scope over a clause: As long as you keep it frozen, it will stay edible. The last phenomenon that I want to talk about with regard to grammati- calization as expansion is semantic expansion.

Over the course of time, gram- maticalizing constructions come to be used with an ever-greater range of Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. This applies to, for instance, the development of grammatical aux- iliaries. The example You may now kiss the bride expresses permission and thus deontic modality. That may have been a mistake expresses a logical possibility.

May has expanded semantically over time. The same goes for the example of as long as that I mentioned a minute ago. Originally, this refers to a time span. The example as long as you keep it frozen refers to the time during which you keep something frozen. When I say As long as you have the money, you can come in, I do not refer to a period of time, but rather I refer to the condition that you have the money.

The shift from tempo- ral to conditional meaning instantiates semantic expansion. Let us look at a few concrete examples of grammatical constructionalization and their developments. When Traugott and Trousdale discuss increases in productivity, they refer to increases in the type frequency of a construction. How many different lexical items are found in usage with a given construc- tion? On this slide, you can see a graph with an increasing curve over time. That curve represents the growing number of participle types that are found in the English noun-participle compounding construction, as for example doctor-recommended or kid-tested.

As time goes on, more and more different Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. When Traugott and Trousdale discuss increases in schematicity, what they have in mind is that a construction acquires a meaning that is increasingly abstract. In the grammaticalization literature, this process goes by the name of semantic bleaching. There are many examples of this. For example, the English be going to future construction no longer necessarily encodes motion.

We find it being used with inanimate subjects in utterances such as Inflation is going to be a problem. The example does neither convey intention nor movement. The construction has become more schematic in its meaning. Also, the example of as long as applies here, as it no longer just encodes time, but also a condition, as in as long as you have the money. Decreases in compositionality mean that the meaning of constructions becomes less and less transparent.

In other words, the idiosyncrasies or unpre- dictable characteristics of the construction are on the rise. The development starts with broadly compositional meanings. For example, in the expression a bit of, the example He gave me a bit of bread refers to a piece of bread that cor- responds to something that you can bite off, a small chunk. When I say I need a bit of sleep, that is a short period, which is not exactly the same thing as a bite- sized object.

When I say That is a bit of a secret, is that a limited part of a secret? Is that only secret-like in some ways? You see how the compositionality of the expression a bit of reduces over time and gives way to a more holistic meaning. The same applies to the English have-perfect, which combines the verb have and a past participle.

Early uses of the construction are used to express actual possession. The example that you see often used in this context is I have the enemy bound, which denotes that the enemy has been won over and is in the state of being tied up. When I say I have read the book, I still presumably have that book in my possession somewhere. I may have given it away, but it was in my possession at some point. But when I say I have slept well, is that period of sleep in my possession?

Was it in my possession when I was actually asleep? That is debatable. What is clear, however, is that the compositionality of the have-perfect has over time become less compositional. Grammatical constructionalization, according to Traugott and Trousdale , is a process that involves an increase in productivity, an increase in schematicity, and a decrease in compositionality. Constructionalization would be the moment when all of these developments come together, and a new node appears in the construct-i-con.

This node has to instantiate a new form- meaning pair, such that both the form and the meaning are recognized as new by speakers of the speech community. This brings up the question of how we should think about changes that happen to an existing form-meaning pair. For Martin Hilpert - Downloaded from Brill. This is something that I have been thinking about. This definition is intentionally very broad, since it is meant to engage with all aspects of constructions.

The most important aspect of the definition is actu- ally the very first part, namely that constructional change is selective about what it affects.

It selectively seizes a conventionalized form-meaning pair. This means that constructional change is not a system-wide change, or a change that affects multiple constructions at the same time. It is really a very local kind of change, and the types of change that may affect single form-meaning pairs.

There are changes in form, such as phonological reduction of I am going to to I am gonna and further to even more reduced forms.

Changes in form also concern the obligatorification of a particular part of a construction. Here I come back to the English way-construction, which has historically come to include an obligatory path or goal constituent.

As time goes on, the relative frequency of examples with a goal or path constituent, they steadily increase in relative frequency until we approximate a hundred percent. Changes in form also subsume what I talked about in terms of host-class expansion. Here again is the example of the it-clefts who expand from noun phrases to prepositional phrases to adverbial phrases and ing-clauses, and you find even other constituent types.

Changes in form is one type of change that can be subsumed under constructional change. The same is true of changes in meaning, which I do not need to exemplify in much detail. Let me just come back to the adverb actually, which can be used as either an adverbial stating factuality, He actually handed in his thesis last week, or as a discourse marker in examples such as Actually, he handed in his thesis last week. Changes in meaning are ubiquitous in grammaticalization, from lexical meaning to more abstract grammatical meanings.

Duration: - Preview at: 0. Music Rights are covered by collection societies and publishers. The images are for illustrative purposes only and are not contractual.

All musical material is re-recorded and does not use in any form the original music or original vocals or any feature of the original recording. Without expressed permission, all uses other than home and private use are forbidden. More information