[en] Construction grammar organizes its basic elements of description, its constructions, into networks that range from concrete, lexically-filled constructions to fully schematic ones, with several levels of partially schematic constructions in between. However, only few corpus studies with a constructionist background take this multi-level nature fully into account. In this paper, we argue that understanding language variation can be advanced considerably by systematically formulating and testing hypotheses at various levels in the constructional network. To illustrate the approach, we present a corpus study of the Dutch naar-alternation. It is found that this alternation primarily functions at an intermediate level in the constructional network.
Research Center/Unit :
Lilith - Liège, Literature, Linguistics - ULiège
Disciplines :
Languages & linguistics
Author, co-author :
Pijpops, Dirk ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : ling., litt. et trad. > Lilith
Speelman, Dirk; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - KUL
Van de Velde, Freek; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - KUL
Grondelaers, Stef
Language :
English
Title :
Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.
Bibliography
Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative alternations in German. The argument realization options of transfer verbs. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Dissertation.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben, Bolker and Steven Walker. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.4.
Boas, Hans. 2014. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1-2). 89-112. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0003.
Broccias, Cristiano. 2001. Allative and ablative at-constructions. In Mary Adronis, Christopher Ball, Elston Heide & Sylvain Neuvel (eds.), CLS 37: The Main Session. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 67-82. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Broekhuis, Hans. 2004. Het voorzetselvoorwerp. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9. 31-97.
Colleman, Timothy. 2009. Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences 31(5). 593-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001.
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions. A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49-68. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Dbrowska, Ewa. 2017. Ten lectures on grammar in the mind. Leiden: Brill.
Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): One billion words, 1990-2019. Available at: Https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handboek of cognitive linguistics, 296-322. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dixon, Robert. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon.
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547-619. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021.
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15.
Fox, John, Sanford Weisberg, Michael Friendly, Jangman Hong, Robert Andersen, David Firth & Steve Taylor. 2016. Effect displays for linear, generalized linear, and other models R package version 3.2.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Introduction. A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In Dirk Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics. Basic readings, 1-28. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Schmidt redux: How systematic is the linguistic system if variation is rampant? In Kasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 237-262. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In Brian Macwhinney (ed.), Emergence of language, 197-212. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28(4). 435-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026.
Gries, Stefan Thomas & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on "alternations". International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97-130. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Geerts Guido, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Harrell, Frank Junior. 2017. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.0-3.
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Huber, Judith. 2013. Caused-motion verbs in the Middle English intransitive motion construction. In Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Variation and change in the encoding of motion events, 203-222. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1988a. A usage-based model. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 127-161. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1988b. An overview of cognitive grammar. In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 3-48. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemler (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1-63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Lenci, Alessandro. 2012. Argument alternations in Italian verbs: A computational study. In Valentina Bambini, Irene Ricci & Pier Marco Bertinetto (eds.), Linguaggio e cervello-Semantica/Language and the Brain-Semantics. Atti del XLII Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Societ'a di Linguistica Italiana, 1-26. Rome: Bulzoni.
Lenci, Alessandro. 2018. Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics 4. 151-171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254.
Levshina, Natalia. 2011. Doe wat je niet laten kan [do what you want]: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Leuven: University of Leuven Dissertation.
Levshina, Natalia. 2012. Comparing constructicons: A usage-based analysis of the causative construction with doen in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. Constructions and Frames 4(1). 76-101. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.4.1.04lev.
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levshina, Natalia & Dirk Geeraerts. 2010. Constructing the constructicon empirically: Experiments with Dutch causatives. In International Conference on Construction Grammar, Prague, September 5.
Levshina, Natalia & Kris Heylen. 2014. A radically data-driven construction grammar: Experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 17-46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1-2). 1-76. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001.
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013a. The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch, theory and applications of natural language processing, 219-247. Heidelberg: Springer.
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013b. SoNaR user documentation.
Padó, Sebastian & Mirella Lapata. 2010. Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics 33(2). 161-199.
Pedersen, Johan. 2019. Verb-based vs. schema-based constructions and their variability: On the Spanish transitive directed-motion construction in a contrastive perspective. Linguistics 57(3). 473-530. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0007.
Perek, Florent. 2014. Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In Dylan Glynn & Jus Robinson (eds.), Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics, 61-85. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 65-97. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014.
Perek, Florent & Adele Eva Goldberg. 2015. Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language 84. 108-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006.
Perek, Florent & Maarten Lemmens. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5. Association francąise de linguistique cognitive (AFLiCo).
Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. How, why and where does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. Leuven: University of Leuven Dissertation.
Pijpops, Dirk. 2020. What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34. 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij.
Pijpops, Dirk & Dirk Speelman. 2017. Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs. A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 207-251. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0006.
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. Comparing explanations for the complexity principle. Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10(3). 514-543. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.13.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149-182. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149.
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487-533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steels, Luc. 2000. Language as a complex adaptive system. In Marc Schoenauer, Kalyanmoy Deb, Günter Rudolph, Xin Yao, Evelyne Lutton, Juan Julian Merelo & Hans-Paul Schwefel (eds.), Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in computer science, 17-26. Berlin: Springer.
Steels, Luc. 2011. Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews 8(4). 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Susanne Flach. 2016. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 101-127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Thomas Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209-244. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber Douglas, Jesse Egbert & Karlien Franco. 2016. Toward more accountability: Modelling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000198.
Thompson, Sandra Annear. 1990. Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space. A Festschrift for Charles-James N. Bailey, 239-253. Arlington: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics 18(4). 523-557. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2007.027.
Turney, Peter & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37. 141-188. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934.
Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 1, 141-179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Hout, Anna Maria Henrica. 1996. Event semantics of verb frame alternations: A case study of Dutch and its acquisition. Tilburg: Tilburg University Dissertation.
van Noord, Gertjan. 2006. At last parsing is now operational. In Piet Mertens, Cédric Fairon, Anne Dister & Patrick Watrin (eds.), TALN 2006. Verbum Ex Machina. Actes de la 13e conference sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles, 20-42. Louvain-la-Neuve: Cental.
van Trijp, Remi. 2015. Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of coercion and argument structure. Cognitive Linguistics 26(4). 613-632. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074.
van Trijp, Remi and Luc Steels. 2012. Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems 15(3-4). https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219525912500397.
van Voorst, Jan. 1996. Some systematic differences between the Dutch, French and English transitive construction. Language Sciences 18(1-2). 227-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(96)88328-8.
Wallis, Sean. 2012. That vexed problem of choice. In Paper presented at ICAME33, 30 May-3 June 2012. Leuven: University of Leuven. Available at: Www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/statspapers/vexedchoice.pdf.
Weeds, Julie, David Weir & Diana McCarthy. 2004. Characterising Measures of Lexical distributional similarity. COLING '04: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics, 1015-1021.
Wible, David & Tsao Nai-Lung. 2020. Constructions and the problem of discovery: A case for the paradigmatic. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(1). 67-93.
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3). 382-419. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Similar publications
Sorry the service is unavailable at the moment. Please try again later.
This website uses cookies to improve user experience. Read more
Save & Close
Accept all
Decline all
Show detailsHide details
Cookie declaration
About cookies
Strictly necessary
Performance
Strictly necessary cookies allow core website functionality such as user login and account management. The website cannot be used properly without strictly necessary cookies.
This cookie is used by Cookie-Script.com service to remember visitor cookie consent preferences. It is necessary for Cookie-Script.com cookie banner to work properly.
Performance cookies are used to see how visitors use the website, eg. analytics cookies. Those cookies cannot be used to directly identify a certain visitor.
Used to store the attribution information, the referrer initially used to visit the website
Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. Websites use cookies to help users navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. Cookies that are required for the website to operate properly are allowed to be set without your permission. All other cookies need to be approved before they can be set in the browser.
You can change your consent to cookie usage at any time on our Privacy Policy page.
