Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 8, 2016

Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?

Dirk Pijpops and Freek Van de Velde
From the journal Folia Linguistica

Abstract

In this article, we introduce the effect of “constructional contamination”. In constructional contamination, a subset of the instances of a target construction deviate in their realization, due to a superficial resemblance they share with instances of a contaminating construction. We claim that this contaminating effect bears testimony to the hypothesis that language users do not always execute a full parse while interpreting and producing sentences. Instead, they may rely on what has been called “shallow parsing”, i. e., chunking the utterances into large, unanalyzed exemplars that may extend across constituent borders. We propose several measures to quantify constructional contamination in corpus data. To evaluate these measures, the Dutch partitive genitive is taken under scrutiny as a target construction of constructional contamination. In this case study, it is shown that neighboring constructions play a crucial role in determining the presence or absence of the -s suffix among instances of the partitive genitive. The different measures themselves, however, are not construction-specific, and can readily be used to track constructional contamination in other case studies as well.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Hendrik De Smet and Lauren Fonteyn for insightful discussions about the nature of constructional contamination, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman and Eline Zenner for methodological assistance, and Judith Cappaert for participating in data coding. Additionally, we owe thanks to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions, and to the editor-in-chief, Hubert Cuyckens, as well as to the guest editors of this issue, Karolina Krawczak, Martin Hilpert and Malgorzata Fabiszak, for editorial assistance and useful advice.

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Heike Behrens. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology 30(6). 995–1026.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2011. AntConc (Computer Software, version 3.3.3). Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/.Search in Google Scholar

Arnon, Inbal & Neal Snider. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 67–82.10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, Rolf Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar

Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst, Frida. 2000. Grammatica van het Nederlands [Grammar of Dutch]. Den Haag: Sdu.Search in Google Scholar

Bartol, Thomas, Cailey Bromer, Justin Kinney, Michael Chirillo, Jennifer Bourne, Kristen Harris & Terrence Sejnowski. 2015. Nanoconnectomic upper bound on the variability of synaptic plasticity. eLife 4. e10778.10.7554/eLife.10778Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker & Steven Walker. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-4. http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4.Search in Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165846Search in Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander & Lena Heine. 2010. Mood and modality in English. In Rolf Thieroff & Björn Rothstein (eds.), Mood systems in the languages of Europe, 103–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.120.06berSearch in Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.xSearch in Google Scholar

Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adjectives and adjective phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.10.1515/9789048522255Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Chang, Winston. 2014. extrafont: Tools for using fonts. http://cran.r-project.org/package=extrafont.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253.10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabSearch in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014. Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4). 617–653.10.1515/cog-2014-0057Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2015. Language in the mind and in the community. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen & Dirk Speelman (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language andlLinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2010. Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth. In Elizabeth Trousdale & Graeme Traugott (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 75–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.90.06desSearch in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. [Special issue] Studies in Language 37(3).10.1075/sl.37.3.01intSearch in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik & Freek Van de Velde. 2013. Serving two masters: Form–function friction in syntactic amalgams. Studies in Language 37(3). 534–565.10.1075/bct.79.04desSearch in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik & Freek Van de Velde. 2014. Travelling features: Multiple sources, multiple destinations. Paper presented at The 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8), University of Osnabrück, 2–6 September.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 296–321. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda & Nikole Patson. 2007. The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1. 71–83.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.xSearch in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren & Nikki van de Pol. 2016. Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 20(2). 185–219.10.1017/S1360674315000258Search in Google Scholar

Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 1–27.10.18637/jss.v008.i15Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013a. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013b. 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 137–165.10.1075/bct.74.07griSearch in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–130.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06griSearch in Google Scholar

Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde Van Aken, Vicky Van den Heede & Dirk Speelman. 2000. Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV-corpus of written Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 5(4). 356–363.Search in Google Scholar

Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: London Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank. 2013. rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 4.0-0. http://cran.r-project.org/package=rms.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wisher & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.49.08heiSearch in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 2014. De opkomst van “aan” als verbindend element in maatnomenconstructies [The rise of “aan” as a connecting element in measure noun constructions]. In Freek Van de Velde, Hans Smessaert, Frank Van Eynde & Sara Verbrugge (eds.), Patroon en argument: Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and argument: A double festschrift on the occasion of William Van Belle’s and Joop van der Horst’s retirement], 421–432. Leuven: Leuven University Press.10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.31Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 1998. Emergent grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315085678-6Search in Google Scholar

Horst, Joop van der. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Search in Google Scholar

Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Bühlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3). 355–373.10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530.004Search in Google Scholar

Hüning, Matthias. 1999. Woordensmederij: De geschiedenis van het suffix -erij [Word forging: The history of the suffix -erij]. The Hague: The Hague Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson (eds.). 2001. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.10.21236/ADA604298Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1988 [1974]. Syntactic amalgams. In Eric Schiller, Barbara Need, Douglas Varley & William Eilfort (eds.), The best of CLS: A selection of out-of-print papers from 1968 to 1975, 25–45. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Landis, John Richard & Gary Grove Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174.10.2307/2529310Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Markman, Ellen & Gwyn Wachtel. 1988. Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology 20(2). 121–157.10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5Search in Google Scholar

Markman, Ellen, Judith Wason & Mikkel Hansen. 2003. Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology 47(3). 241–275.10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00034-3Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James & Peter White. 2007. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2014. On parents and peers in constructional networks. Paper presented as CoglingDays 6. University of Ghent, December 12.Search in Google Scholar

Oostdijk, Nelleke, Wim Goedertier, Frank Van Eynde, Louis Boves, Jean-Pierre Martens, Michael Moortgat & Harald Baayen. 2002. Experiences from the spoken Dutch corpus project. Proceedings of the third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 340–347. Las Palmas. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2002/.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2014. A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch: Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Published online, ahead of print.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2016. Ethnolect speakers and Dutch partitive adjectival inflection: A corpus analysis. Taal en Tongval 67(2). 343–371.10.5117/TET2015.2.PIJPSearch in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.r-project.org/.Search in Google Scholar

Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.18speSearch in Google Scholar

Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin & Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(307). Available at http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-307.Search in Google Scholar

Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis & Torsten Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). Available at http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-8-25.Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 113–150.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113Search in Google Scholar

Townsend, David & Thomas Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Van Bart, Peter, Johan Kerstens & Arie Sturm. 1998. Grammatica van het Nederlands: Een inleiding [Grammar of Dutch: An introduction]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.10.5117/9789053562819Search in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek. 2001. Iets taalkundig(s): Een functioneel georiënteerde analyse van deflexie en de genitiefontwikkeling in het Nederlands [Something linguistic: A functionally oriented analysis of deflexion and the development of the genitive in Dutch]. Leuven: Univerisity of Leuven MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek. 2009. De nominale constituent: Structuur en geschiedenis [The noun phrase. Structure and history]. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Search in Google Scholar

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, 141–179. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110366273.141Search in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in language 37(3). 473–489.10.1075/bct.79.01intSearch in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek & Joop van der Horst. 2013. Homoplasy in diachronic grammar. Language Sciences 36(1). 66–77.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.020Search in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek & Fred Weerman. 2014. The resilient nature of adjectival inflection in Dutch. In Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Adjectives in Germanic and Romance, 113–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.212.05velSearch in Google Scholar

Venables, William & Brian Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2Search in Google Scholar

Verhagen Arie. 2013. Darwin en de ideale taalgebruiker [Darwin and the ideal language user]. In Theo A.J.M. Janssen & Jan Noordegraaf (eds.), Honderd jaar taalwetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit [A hundred years of linguistics. Articles presented to Saskia Daalder on the occasion of her retirement from the Free University], 151–162. Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen.Search in Google Scholar

Wickham, Hadley & Romain Francois. 2015. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. http://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1932. Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674434929Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2015-11-10
Revised: 2016-2-22
Revised: 2016-4-6
Accepted: 2016-5-31
Published Online: 2016-11-8
Published in Print: 2016-11-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton