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

Folia Linguistica

Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae

Editor-in-Chief: Cuyckens, Hubert / Fischer, Olga / Norde, Muriel

4 Issues per year


Folia Linguistica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.312
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.578

CiteScore 2016: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.398
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.538


Folia Linguistica Historica
IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.294
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.263

Online
ISSN
1614-7308
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 50, Issue 2 (Nov 2016)

Issues

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

Dirk Pijpops
  • Corresponding author
  • Flanders Research Foundation (FWO)
  • Research Unit QLVL, University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 21, P.O. Box 3308, 3000 BE-Leuven, Belgium
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Freek Van de Velde
Published Online: 2016-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020

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.

Keywords: constructional contamination; shallow parsing; exemplar; partitive genitive; mixed-effects generalized linear models

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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Broekhuis, Hans. 2013. Syntax of Dutch: Adjectives and adjective phrases. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014. Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4). 617–653.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.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.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).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.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.

  • Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.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.Google Scholar

  • Ferreira, Fernanda & Nikole Patson. 2007. The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1. 71–83.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.Google Scholar

  • Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8. 1–27.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–130.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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

  • 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.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.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society 13. 139–157.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Bühlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3). 355–373.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.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Landis, John Richard & Gary Grove Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1). 159–174.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • 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/.

  • 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.

  • Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2016. Ethnolect speakers and Dutch partitive adjectival inflection: A corpus analysis. Taal en Tongval 67(2). 343–371.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/.

  • 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.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: .CrossrefGoogle 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: .CrossrefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

  • Townsend, David & Thomas Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Van de Velde, Freek & Joop van der Horst. 2013. Homoplasy in diachronic grammar. Language Sciences 36(1). 66–77.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.Google Scholar

  • Venables, William & Brian Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Zipf, George Kingsley. 1932. Selected studies of the principle of relative frequency in language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-11-10

Revised: 2016-02-22

Revised: 2016-04-06

Accepted: 2016-05-31

Published Online: 2016-11-08

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


Citation Information: Folia Linguistica, ISSN (Online) 1614-7308, ISSN (Print) 0165-4004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in