1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 10, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In every-day language use, two or more structurally unrelated constructions may occasionally give rise to strings that look very similar on the surface. As a result of this superficial resemblance, a subset of instances of one of these constructions may deviate in the probabilistic preference for either of several possible formal variants. This effect is called ‘constructional contamination’, and was introduced in Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016). Constructional contamination bears testimony to the hypothesis that language users do not always execute a full parse of the utterances they interpret, but instead often rely on ‘shallow parsing’ and the storage of large, unanalyzed chunks of language in memory, as proposed in Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro (2002)Ferreira & Patson (2007), and Dąbrowska (2014).

Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016) investigated a single case study in depth, namely the Dutch partitive genitive. This case study is reviewed, and three new case studies are added, namely the competition between long and bare infinitives, word order variation in verbal clusters, and preterite formation. We find evidence of constructional contamination in all case studies, albeit in varying degrees. This indicates that constructional contamination is not a particularity of the Dutch partitive genitive but appears to be more wide-spread, affecting both morphology and syntax. Furthermore, we distinguish between two forms of constructional contamination, viz. first degree and second degree contamination, with first degree contamination producing greater effects than second degree contamination.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
2019-01-21
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Augustinus, L., & Van Eynde, F.
    (2017) A usage-based typology of Dutch and German IPP verbs. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift Voor Germaanse Filologie. Nijhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., & van der Ham, M.
    (2006) Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects. Vol. 1: Pronouns, Agreement and Dependencies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam university press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.4. Retrieved fromcran.r-project.org/package=lme4
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Beuls, K., & van Trijp, R.
    (2016) Computational construction grammar and constructional change. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 1–13. doi:  10.1075/bjl.30.01beu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.01beu [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloem, J.
    (2016) Lexical preferences in Dutch verbal cluster ordering. InK. Bellamy, E. Karvovskaya, M. Kohlberger, & G. Saad (Eds.), ConSOLE XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (pp.70–93). Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F.
    (2014) Applying automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. InJ. Tsujii & J. Hajic (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2014: the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: technical papers (pp.1974–1984). Dublin: Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015) An agent-based model of Germanic verbal cluster word order change. InComputational Linguistics in the Netherlands (CLIN). February6, Antwerp.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2017) Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences, 60, 94–119. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2016.10.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.10.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bod, R.
    (2006) Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. Linguistic Review, 23(3), 291–320. doi:  10.1515/TLR.2006.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2009) From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 752–793. doi:  10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01031.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01031.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolinger, D.
    (1980) Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. InG. Brettschneider & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (pp.292–299). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 543–555. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2010.00213.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. InG. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp.69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Broekhuis, H., & Strang, A.
    (1996) De partitieve genitiefconstructie [The partitive genitive construction]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1(3), 221–238.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, J., & Slobin, D.
    (1982) Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58(2), 265–289. doi:  10.1353/lan.1982.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0021 [Google Scholar]
  19. Carroll, R., Svare, R., & Salmons, J.
    (2012) Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 2(2), 153–172. 10.1075/jhl.2.2.01car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.2.2.01car [Google Scholar]
  20. Claes, J., & Johnson, D. E.
    (Forthcoming). Cognitive linguistics and the predictability of effects: Agreement in English and Spanish existentials.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Colleman, T.
    (2009) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31(5), 593–611. doi:  10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Coupé, G.
    (2015) Syntactic extension. The historical development of Dutch verb clusters. Leiden: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Coussé, E.
    (2008) Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. Dissertation, University of Ghent.
  24. (2011) On ambiguous past participles in Dutch. Linguistics, 49(3), 611–634. doi:  10.1515/ling.2011.019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.019 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0057
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0057 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2015) Language in the mind and in the community. InJ. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, & D. Speelman (Eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes. Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp.221–235). Berlin: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K.
    (2018) The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025 [Google Scholar]
  28. De Smet, I. & F. Van de Velde
    (Forthcoming 2019) Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection. Diachronica36(2).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. De Sutter, G.
    (2005) Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Dissertation, University of Leuven.
  30. den Besten, H., & Edmonson, J.
    (1983) The verbal complex in continental West-Germanic. InW. Abraham (Ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania (pp.155–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.3.05bes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.3.05bes [Google Scholar]
  31. den Boon, T., & Geeraerts, D.
    (Eds.) (2005) Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal (14th ed). Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicography.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V.
    (2002) Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00158
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferreira, F., & Patson, N.
    (2007) The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00007.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Friendly, M., Hong, J., Andersen, R., Firth, D., & Taylor, S.
    (2016) Effect displays for linear, generalized linear, and other models. R package version 3.2.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. InE. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp.71–102). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gibson, E. A. F.
    (1991) A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
  38. Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Grondelaers, S.
    (2000) De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats: sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Dissertation, University of Leuven.
  40. Grondelaers, S., Deygers, K., Van Aken, H., Van den Heede, V., & Speelman, D.
    (2000) Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV-corpus of written Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5(4), 356–363. Retrieved fromneon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de/static/digitaal/digitaal-11.html
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.
    (1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Harrell, F.
    (2013) rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 4.0-0. Retrieved fromcran.r-project.org/package=rms
  43. Heine, B.
    (1993) Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Heller, B.
    (2018) Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide. The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Dissertation, University of Leuven.
  45. Hoeksema, J.
    (1998) Adjectivale inflectie op -s: geen geval van transpositie [Adjectival inflection on -s: not a case of transposition]. InE. Hoekstra & C. Smits (Eds.), Morfologiedagen 1996 [Morphology Days 1996] (pp.46–72). Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens-Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
    (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
     https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jasanoff, J. H.
    (2007) From reduplication to ablaut: The class VII strong verbs of Northwest Germanic. Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics, 120, 241–284. 10.13109/hisp.2007.120.1.241
     https://doi.org/10.13109/hisp.2007.120.1.241 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kester, E.-P.
    (1996) The nature of adjectival inflection. LEd, Utrecht. Utrecht: LEd
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Klooster, W.
    (2001) Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands: een volledig overzicht [Grammar of contemporary Dutch: A complete overview]. Den Haag: Sdu.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Knooihuizen, R., & Strik, O.
    (2014) Relative productivity potential of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica, 35(1), 173–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Konieczny, L.
    (2005) The psychological reality of local coherences in sentence processing. InB. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1178–1183). Stresa: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Konieczny, L., Müller, D., Hachmann, W., Schwarzkopf, S., & Wolfer, S.
    (2009) Local syntactic coherence interpretation. Evidence from a visual world study. InN. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.1133–1138). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. König, E., & Gast, V.
    (2009) Understanding English-German contrasts (2nd edn.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lemmens, M.
    (2005) Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217. doi:  10.1017/S1470542705000073
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542705000073 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lieberman, E., Michel, J.-B., Jackson, J., Tang, T., & Nowak, M.
    (2007) Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449(7163), 713–716. 10.1038/nature06137
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137 [Google Scholar]
  58. Marcus, G., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S.
    (1995) German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 189–256. 10.1006/cogp.1995.1015
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1995.1015 [Google Scholar]
  59. Norde, M., & Trousdale, G.
    (2016) Exaptation from the perspective of construction morphology. InM. Norde & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp.163–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.336.06nor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.336.06nor [Google Scholar]
  60. Oostdijk, N., Goedertier, W., Van Eynde, F., Boves, L., Martens, J.-P., Moortgat, M., & Baayen, H.
    (2002) Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project. InProceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) (pp.340–347). Retrieved fromwww.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2002/
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I.
    (2013) The Construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. InP. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch, theory and applications of natural language processing (pp.219–247). Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑30910‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pauwels, A.
    (1953) De plaats van hulpwerkwoord verleden deelwoord en infinitief in de Nederlandse bijzin. Leuven: Symons.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Phillips, C.
    (1996) Order and structure. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  64. Pijpops, D., Beuls, K., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2015) The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic. An agent-based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 5, 81–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Pijpops, D., & Speelman, D.
    (2017) Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs. A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica, 51(1), 207–251. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  66. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2015) Ethnolect speakers and Dutch partitive adjectival inflection. A corpus analysis. Taal En Tongval, 67(2), 343–371. 10.5117/TET2015.2.PIJP
     https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2015.2.PIJP [Google Scholar]
  67. (2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2018) A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 14(1), 99–131. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0027 [Google Scholar]
  69. Pinker, S., & Prince, A.
    (1988) On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1), 73–193. 10.1016/0010‑0277(88)90032‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7 [Google Scholar]
  70. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna. Retrieved fromwww.r-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  72. Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J.
    (1986) On learning the past tense of English verbs. InD. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp.216–271). Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Scha, R., Bod, R., & Sima’an, K.
    (1999) A memory-based model of syntactic analysis: Data-oriented parsing. Journal Of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11(3), 409–440. doi:  10.1080/095281399146481
     https://doi.org/10.1080/095281399146481 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schmid, T.
    (2005) Infinitival syntax: Infinitivus pro participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.79
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.79 [Google Scholar]
  75. Steels, L.
    (2000) Language as a complex adaptive system. InM. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in computer science (pp.17–26). Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.11
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2017) Basics of fluid construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225. 10.1075/cf.00002.ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00002.ste [Google Scholar]
  78. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2005) Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2017) Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 62(4), 685–701. Retrieved fromhttps://muse.jhu.edu/article/678232
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Szmrecsanyi, B., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Franco, K.
    (2016) Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 1–29. 10.1017/S0954394515000198
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000198 [Google Scholar]
  81. Taatgen, N., & Anderson, J.
    (2002) Why do children learn to say “broke”? A model of learning the past tense without feedback. Cognition, 86, 123–155. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00176‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00176-2 [Google Scholar]
  82. Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D.
    (2004) Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. doi:  10.1017/S0954394512000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  84. van Bart, P., Kerstens, J., & Sturm, A.
    (1998) Grammatica van het Nederlands. Een inleiding [Grammar of Dutch. An introduction]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.5117/9789053562819
     https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053562819 [Google Scholar]
  85. van Coetsem, F.
    (1990) Ablaut and reduplication in the Germanic verb. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, Vol.1 (pp.141–179). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. (2015) Schijnbare syntactische feniksen [Apparent syntactic phoenixes]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 69–107. 10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.VELD
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.VELD [Google Scholar]
  88. (2017) Understanding grammar at the community level requires a diachronic perspective. Evidence from four case studies. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22(1), 47–74. 10.5117/NEDTAA2017.1.VELD
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.1.VELD [Google Scholar]
  89. Van de Velde, F. & D. Pijpops
    2018 Grensoverschrijdend syntactisch gedrag [Cross-border syntactic behavior]. InT. Colleman, J. De Caluwe, V. De Tier, A.-S. Ghyselen, L. Triest, R. Vandenberghe & U. Vogl (Eds.), Woorden om te bewaren. Huldeboek voor Jacques Van Keymeulen [Words to preserve. Articles in honor of Jacques Van Keymeulen] (pp.433–449). Ghent: UGent, Department of Linguistics, research group of Dutch.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. van der Horst, J.
    (2008) Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Van Eynde, F.
    (2004) Part of speech tagging en lemmatisering van het corpus gesproken nederlands. Retrieved fromwww.hum.uu.nl/medewerkers/p.monachesi/papers/vaneynde.pdf
  92. van Noord, G.
    (2006) At last parsing is now operational. InP. Mertens, C. Fairon, A. Dister, & P. Watrin (Eds.), TALN 2006. Verbum Ex Machina. Actes de la 13e conference sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles (pp.20–42). Louvain-la-Neuve: Cental.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. van Trijp, R.
    (2008) Analogy and multi-level selection in the formation of a case grammar. A case study in Fluid Construction Grammar. Dissertation, University of Antwerp.
  94. van Trijp, R., Steels, L., Beuls, K., & Wellens, P.
    (2012) Fluid construction grammar: The new kid on the block. InProceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.63–68). Avignon: ACL.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. von Mengden, F.
    (2011) Ablaut or transfixation? On the Old English strong verbs. InR. Bauer & U. Krischke (Eds.), More than words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present. Essays presented to Hans Sauer on the occasion of his 65th birthday – Part I. (pp.123–139). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Vosters, R.
    (2012) Geolinguistic data and the past tense debate. Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of Dutch verb regularization. InG. De Vogelaer & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory. Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp.227–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.128.10vos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.128.10vos [Google Scholar]
  97. Weinberg, A.
    (1993) Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(3), 339–364. doi:  10.1007/BF01068016
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068016 [Google Scholar]
  98. Wickham, H., & Romain, F.
    (2015) dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B.
    (1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German language]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Zwart, J.-W.
    (2011) The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511977763
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977763 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
Loading
Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax
Constructions and Frames 10, 269 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alternation; bare infinitive; constructional contamination; corpus; Dutch; long infinitive; partitive genitive; strong verbs; verbal clusters; weak verbs

Most Cited

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