Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This squib discusses empirical challenges incurred by assuming cognitive reality as a defining feature of constructions and the constructional network, as done in most usage-based, cognitive construction grammar approaches. Specifically, it zooms in on the methodological challenges in identifying cognitively plausible constructions in historical data, in particular when taking a highly exploratory, bottom-up approach with very little pre-selection or pre-analysis. I illustrate this issue with the example of a current project on PPs in the history of English, and the various functions these have in combination with verbs (from prototypical adjuncts to complements). I argue that the constraints of historical data make it necessary to find different, new ways to determine which abstractions and distinctions are likely to have been represented in minds of historical language users, and to furthermore identify changes in constructional networks over time.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bergen, Benjamin , and Nancy Chang
    2013 “Embodied Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergs, Alexander
    2021 “Complements and Adjuncts.” InThe Handbook of English Linguistics, ed. by Bas Aarts , April McMahon , and Lars Hinrichs . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  4. Budts, Sara , and Peter Petré
    2020 “Putting Connections Centre Stage in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” InNodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Elena Smirnova , 318–351. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.09bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud [Google Scholar]
  5. Claridge, Claudia
    2000Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English. A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004333840
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333840 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2004Language, Mind, and Brain: Some psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. De Cuypere, Ludovic
    2015 “The Old English to-Dative Construction.” English Language and Linguistics19 (1): 1–26. 10.1017/S1360674314000276
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000276 [Google Scholar]
  8. Diessel, Holger
    2019The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  9. Divjak, Dagmar , and Stefan Gries
    2006 “Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2: 23–60. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Glynn, Dylan
    2014 “Correspondence Analysis: Exploring Data and Identifying Patterns.” InCorpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, ed. by Dylan Glynn , and Justyna Robinson , 443–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  11. Fonteyn, Lauren
    2020 “What about Grammar? Using BERT Embeddings to Explore Functional-Semantic Shifts of Semi-Lexical and Grammatical Constructions.” InProceedings of the Workshop on Computational Humanities Research (CHR 2020), 257–268.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, Adele
    2006Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2019Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gries, Stefan
    2013 “Data in Construction Grammar.” InThe Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hilpert, Martin
    2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hilpert, Martin , and Susanne Flach
    2020 “Disentangling Modal Meanings with Distributional Semantics.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities: fqaa014. 10.1093/llc/fqaa014
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa014 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hilpert, Martin , and Florent Perek
    2015 “Meaning Change in a Petri Dish: Constructions, Semantic Vector Spaces, and Motion Charts.” Linguistics Vanguard1: 339–350. 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2007 “Complements versus Adjuncts? A Construction Grammar Account of English Prepositional Phrases.” Occasional Papers in Language and Linguistics3: 92–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoffmann, Thomas , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013 “Construction Grammar: Introduction.”. InThe Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Huddleston, Rodney , and Geoffrey Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hundt, Marianne , and Eva Zehentner
    . forthc. “Prepositions in Early Modern English Argument Structure.” InProceedings of the 20th ICEHL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kay, Paul
    2005 “Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction.” InGrammatical Constructions: Back to the roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried , and Hans Boas , 71–98. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  23. Kroch, Anthony , Ann Taylor , and Beatrice Santorini
    2000The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kroch, Anthony , Beatrice Santorini , and Lauren Delfs
    2004The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, first edition, release 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kroch, Anthony , Beatrice Santorini , and Ariel Diertani
    2016The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, George
    1990 “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics1 (1): 39–74. 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levshina, Natalia , and Kris Heylen
    2014 “A Radically Data-Driven Construction Grammar: Experiments with Dutch Causative Constructions.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , 17–46. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.17
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.17 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lieven, Elena , and Michael Tomasello
    2008 “Children’s First Language Acquisition from a Usage-Based Perspective.” InHandbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Peter Robinson , and Nick Ellis , 168–196. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Madabushi, Harish Tayyar , Laurence Romain , Dagmar Divjak , and Petar Milin
    2020 “CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar.” Preprint.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Percillier, Michael
    2020 “Allostructions, Homostructions or a Constructional Family?: Changes in the Network of Secondary Predicate Constructions in Middle English.” InNodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Elena Smirnova , 214–242. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per [Google Scholar]
  31. Perek, Florent
    2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2016 “Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study.” Linguistics54 (1): 149–188. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pijpops, Dirk , Dirk Speelman , Stefan Grondelaers , and Freek Van de Velde
    2018 “Why and How We Need to Incorporate the Multi-Level Nature of the Constructicon into Corpus Research.” Paper presented atICCG10.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Sommerer, Lotte, and Andreas Baumann
    2021 “Of Absent Mothers, Strong Sisters and Peculiar Daughters: The Constructional Network of English NPN Constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics32(1): 97–131. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0013 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2013 “Collostructional analysis.” InThe Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
    2015Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732522
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732522 [Google Scholar]
  39. Zehentner, Eva , and Elizabeth Traugott
    2020 “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” InNodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Elena Smirnova , 168–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error