Grammaticalisation

doi:10.1017/9781009205443.033

30 - Grammaticalisation

from Part IV - Modelling the Record: Methods and Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 October 2025

Andrew D. M. Smith

Edited by

Merja Kytö and

Erik Smitterberg

Show author details

Merja Kytö: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Erik Smitterberg: Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Grammaticalisation is the gradual historical process through which English, like all languages, generates its grammatical material. It is underpinned by separate yet interconnected mechanisms of language change which result in the continuous formal and functional modification of lexical items in specific constructions and contexts. Its ultimate origin has been identified as metaphorical extension and as context-induced reinterpretation, but fundamentally lies in the approximate and inferential nature of linguistic communication. These processes and motivations are explored here through a number of case studies from the history of English, focusing in particular on the emergence of various tense markers, quantifiers and complex prepositions.

Keywords

grammaticalisation construction grammar usage-based entrenchment metaphor reanalysis tense markers quantifiers prepositions ostensive-inferential communication

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The New Cambridge History of the English Language
Documentation, Sources of Data and Modelling
, pp. 744 - 767

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009205443.033 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 88.2: 269–304.10.1353/lan.2012.0027CrossRef Google Scholar

Blythe, Richard A. and Croft, William. 2021. How individuals change language. PLOS ONE 16.6: e0252582.Google Scholar PubMed

Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun constructions: an instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8.2: 283–312.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05breCrossRef Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2011. Layering of Size and Type Noun Constructions in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110252927CrossRef Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte and Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2017. Approaches to grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of frequency. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–623.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23.2–3: 113–161.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of Principles and Parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang and Vennenmann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 506–569.10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33: 839–882.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2010. The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 48.1: 1–48.10.1515/ling.2010.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Croft, William and Cruse, Alan D.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864CrossRef Google Scholar

Detges, Ulrich and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: a semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21.S: 151–195.10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151CrossRef Google Scholar

Deutscher, Guy. 2005. The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind’s Greatest Invention. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar

Elsness, Johan. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110810264CrossRef Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538.Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga and van der Wurff, Wim. 2006. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–198.10.1017/CBO9780511791154.004CrossRef Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.2CrossRef Google Scholar

Gisborne, Nikolas and Patten, Amanda. 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92–104.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–44.10.1075/tsl.59.03hasCrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–101.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 575–601.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania and Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Hoefler, Stefan and Smith, Andrew D. M.. 2009. The pre-linguistic basis of grammaticalisation: a unified approach to metaphor and reanalysis. Studies in Language 33.4: 886–909.10.1075/sl.33.4.03hoeCrossRef Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2005. Grammaticalization and English Complex Prepositions: A Corpus-Based Study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hurford, James R. 2012. The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2001. Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: on the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23.2–3: 265–340.10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00023-1CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kay, Paul and Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y construction. Language 75: 1–34.Google Scholar

Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Killie, Kristin. 2007. On the source(s) and grammaticalization of the Germanic -lik suffix. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 108.4: 659–682.Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1965. The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes 13.51: 55–71.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania. 2001. Auxiliation: An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko and Rhee, Seongha (eds.). 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316479704CrossRef Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1997. Be/have + past participle: the choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.), English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 17–85.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Larroque, Patrice. 2011. The grammaticalization of done in non-standard English. Anglophonia: French Journal of English Linguistics 15: 23–36.10.4000/anglophonia.373CrossRef Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar

Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49.2: 415–443.10.1515/ling.2011.013CrossRef Google Scholar

Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav and McEnery, Tony. 2017. The spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22.3: 319–344.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2011. Grammaticalization and corpus linguistics. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–250.Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12: 384–400.Google Scholar

Myers, Jay L. 2014. Fixin’ to: the emergence of an American quasi-modal. American Speech 89.1: 42–73.10.1215/00031283-2726395CrossRef Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2018. Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nicolle, Steve. 2011. Pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–412.Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk and van der Auwera, Johan. 2009. Revisiting be supposed to from a diachronic constructionist perspective. English Studies 5: 599–623.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pagliuca, William (ed.). 1994. Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rowley, Anthony. 1983. Das Präteritum in den heutigen deutschen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 50.2: 161–182.Google Scholar

Schwenter, Scott A. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–273.Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, Thom. 2015. Speaking Our Minds: Why Human Communication Is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make It Special. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. 2017. Grammaticalization theory. In Shackelford, Todd K. and Weekes-Shackelford, Viviana A. (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. and Hoefler, Stefan. 2015. The pivotal role of metaphor in the evolution of human language. In Dı́az Vera, Javier E. (ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy across Time and Cultures. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 123–139.10.1515/9783110335453.123CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, Andrew D. M. and Hoefler, Stefan. 2017. From metaphor to symbols and grammar: the cumulative cultural evolution of language. In Power, Camilla, Finnegan, Morna and Callan, Hilary (eds.), Human Origins: Contributions from Social Anthropology. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 153–179.Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Svorou, Soteria. 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.25CrossRef Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198700333.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65.1: 31–55.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In Stein, Dieter and Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 624–647.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8.2: 295–309.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2005. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001CrossRef Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Markers of futurity in Old English and the grammaticalization of shall and will. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42: 165–178.Google Scholar

Wischer, Ilse. 2008. Will and shall as markers of modality and/or futurity in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 29: 125–143.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The PDF of this book conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.