Ways of explaining meaning change in grammaticalization

The place of grammaticalization theory vis-à-vis alternative frameworks, and especially that of Diachronic Construction Grammar, has more recently been a subject of debate. One of the topics figuring in this debate concerns the role played by explanation in accounting for grammatical change. It turns out that the two frameworks rely on contrasting views on what constitutes an explanation. Parameters favored in Diachronic Construction Grammar are most of all analogy, reanalysis, and frequency of use. Students of grammaticalization, in contrast, tend to prefer to search for explanations by looking at the functional motivations underlying discourse processing. The goal of the paper is to compare these different positions and to attempt a critical analysis of them with a view to finding out whether the two can be reconciled with one another. Unlike most of the work that has so far been carried out on both grammaticalization and constructional change, the paper has a focus on the initial phase of changes in discourse processing.