Journal of English Linguistics

An issue in dialect research has been how to make generalizations from survey data about where some dialect feature might be found. Precomputational methods included drawing isoglosses or using shadings to indicate areas where an analyst expected a feature to be found. The use of computers allowed for faster plotting of locations where any given feature had been elicited, and also allowed for the use of statistical techniques from technical geography to estimate regions where particular features might be found. However, using the computer did not make the analysis less subjective than isoglosses, and statistical methods from technical geography have turned out to be limited in use. We have prepared a cellular automaton (CA) for use with data collected for the Linguistic Atlas Project that can address the problems involved in this type of data visualization. The CA plots the locations where survey data were elicited, and then through the application of rules creates an estimate of the spatial distributions of selected features. The application of simple rules allows the CA to create objective and reproducible estimates based on the data it was given, without the use of statistical methods.

It is generally accepted in usage-based theories of language that language change is facilitated by contexts of use that allow for semantically and/or structurally ambiguous readings of a construction. While this facilitative effect is well attested in the literature, much less attention has been paid to factors that constrain language change. Furthermore, the idea that ambiguities may also promote stability and discourage change has not been explored in detail. In this article I discuss the development of three participle constructions that have gained increasingly adjective-like uses in recent history: ADJ-looking (e.g., modest-looking), N-Ving denoting a change in psychological state (e.g., awe-inspiring), and the adjectival -ed participle headed by a psych-verb (e.g., surprised). I argue that the development of these constructions has been significantly constrained by unresolved ambiguities as well as source structures that continue to support the earlier, verbal categorization instead of an adjectival one. As a consequence, the participles have acquired adjectival uses gradually and often at a slow rate. The data are analyzed from a constructionist perspective, where constructions are connected in a network, and categories like “verb” or “adjective” are regarded as emergent schemas that arise from actual patterns of use.

This paper addresses the notion of close apposition. It begins by analyzing the quintessential appositive construction the poet Burns, arguing that such strings do not have a stable internal structure. This conclusion can be applied to other so-called close appositions, such as we boys, but not to similar-looking structures like my friend Burns or a friend John in linguistics. Most close appositions are characterized by a strong degree of conventionalization and fixity, and remain relatively fossilized schemas, a fact that contributes to their recognizability as specific constructions. However, not all these seemingly binominal constructions have exactly the same constituency, but are rather relatively distinct symbols with distinct functions. The focus of this paper is thus to show how so-called close appositions do not constitute a fixed form. It will also be suggested—although due to space limitations not fully pursued—that both their similarities and the “taxonomic” and “inheritance” ties they share motivate an analysis of close apposition in general as a constructional “network,” understood in a way which is compatible with various forms of Construction Grammar.