Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.760
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.109

CiteScore 2016: 0.58

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.370
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.921

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis

Florent Perek
Published Online: 2016-11-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014

Abstract

This paper presents a corpus-based study of recent change in the English way-construction, drawing on data from the 1830s to the 2000s. Semantic change in the distribution of the construction is characterized by means of a distributional semantic model, which captures semantic similarity between verbs through their co-occurrence frequency with other words in the corpus. By plotting and comparing the semantic domain of the three senses of the construction at different points in time, it is found that they all have gained in semantic diversity. These findings are interpreted in terms of increases in schematicity, either of the verb slot or the motion component contributed by the construction.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: productivity; way-construction; recent change; diachronic construction grammar; schematicity

References

  • Andrews, Mark, Gabriella Vigliocco & David P. Vinson. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review 116(3). 463–498.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Gert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Gert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, Vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–844.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bergs, Alex & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan & David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82(2). 323–355.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 387–410.Google Scholar

  • Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davies, Mark. 2012. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word corpus of historical American English. Corpora 7(2). 121–157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick C., Matthew O’Donnell & Ute Römer. 2014. Does language Zipf right along? Investigating robustness in the latent structures of usage and acquisition. In Jeffrey Connor-Linton & Luke W. Amoroso (eds.), Measured language: Quantitative studies of acquisition, assessment, processing and variation, 33–50. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10). 635–653.Google Scholar

  • Evert, Stefan. 2005. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Stuttgart: Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart. urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-23714.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language 64(3). 501–538CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Firth, John R. 1968 [1957]. A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–55. In Frank Palmer (ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59, 168–205. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 261–91.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A construction grammar approach to language change. In An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds.), Formal evidence in grammaticalization research, 191–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 289–316.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan T. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2010. Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In Sally Rice & John Newman (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 73–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Hill, Felix, Roi Reichart & Anna Korhonen. 2014. SimLex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. URN: arXiv:1408.3456 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3456v1> (15 September 2015).

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robynson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 133–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kruskal, Joseph B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29(1). 1–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Landauer, Thomas K., Peter W. Foltz & Darrell Laham. 1998. Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes 25. 259–284.Google Scholar

  • Lenci, Alessandro. 2008. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica 20(1). 1–31.Google Scholar

  • Lund, Kevin, Curt Burgess & Ruth A. Atchley. 1995. Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In Cognitive Science Proceedings (LEA), 660–665.

  • Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22(3). 397–421.Google Scholar

  • Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202.Google Scholar

  • Noël, Dirk. 2008. The nominative and infinitive in late modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4). 314–340.Google Scholar

  • Noël, Dirk & Timothy Colleman. 2010. Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(2). 157–182.Google Scholar

  • Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Perek, Florent & Maarten Lemmens. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5. http://cognitextes.revues.org/331

  • R Development Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar

  • Römer, Ute, Matthew B. O’Donnell & Nick C. Ellis. 2015. Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions: Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge. In Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles & Suganthi John (eds.), Corpora, grammar and discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston, 43–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Suttle, Laura & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szczesniak, Konrad. 2013. You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics 24(1). 159–194.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Trousdale, Graeme 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Katharine Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 51–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Trousdale, Graeme 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 167–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Turney, Peter & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37. 141–188.Google Scholar

  • Van der Maaten, Laurens & Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9. 2579–2605.Google Scholar

  • Zipf, George K. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-11-18


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in