1887
image of Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Recent models of constructional networks combine vertical links between schemas and their subtypes with horizontal links between constructions at the same level of abstraction. It remains unclear, however, whether vertical and horizontal analyses express distinct information about the network, or whether one can be reformulated in terms of the other. In this paper, it is argued that vertical and horizontal links do not encode distinct cognitive mechanisms but that they are notational variants for representing a common notion of constructional similarity. The practical advantages of each notation are outlined, and some potential objections to the present account are addressed.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22011.ung
2024-04-02
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambridge, B.
    (2020) Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, (), –. 10.1177/0142723720949723
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723720949723 [Google Scholar]
  2. Audring, J.
    (2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, (), –. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
    (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bock, K.
    (1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, (), –. 10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90004‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bresnan, J.
    (1978) A realistic transformational grammar. InM. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp.–). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Budts, S., & Petré, P.
    (2020) Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.09bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J.
    (1998) The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.–). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, 1, –. 10.24338/cons‑381
    https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-381 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelle, B., Travassos, P. F., Mota, N. A., Costa, M. G. da, Nunes, L. F., Martins, G. L., & Vieira, M. dos S. M.
    (2021) Constructional variation – unveiling aspects of linguistic knowledge: Interview with Bert Cappelle. Revista Da Anpoll, , –. 10.18309/ranpoll.v52iesp.1596
    https://doi.org/10.18309/ranpoll.v52iesp.1596 [Google Scholar]
  12. Colleman, T.
    (2020) The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. InC. Fedriani & M. Napoli (Eds.), The diachrony of ditransitives (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110701371‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701371-005 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  15. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2008) The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, (), –. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  18. Diewald, G.
    (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  19. Elman, J. L.
    (2004) An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fellbaum, C.
    (Ed.) (1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferlež, J., & Gams, M.
    (2004) Shortest-path semantic distance measure in WordNet v2.0. Informatica, (), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fried, M.
    (2021) Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.00046.fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00046.fri [Google Scholar]
  23. Glynn, D.
    (2022) Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. InK. Krawczak, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Grygiel (Eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.73.08gly
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.08gly [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldstone, R. L.
    (1994) The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, (), –. 10.1016/0010‑0277(94)90065‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90065-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gyselinck, E.
    (2018) The role of expressivity and productivity in (re)shaping the constructional network : A corpus-based study into synchronic and diachronic variation in the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction in 19th to 21st Century Dutch. Ghent University PhD dissertation.
  29. (2020) (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network hierarchy. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.03gys
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.03gys [Google Scholar]
  30. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
    (2016) Entrenchment in construction grammar. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoffmann, T.
    (2020) What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar? Falsifiability, confirmation bias and the future of the constructionist enterprise. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00042.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00042.hof [Google Scholar]
  34. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hudson, R. A.
    (1984) Word Grammar. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jackendoff, R.
    (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, (), –. 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
    (2020) The texture of the lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jakobson, R.
    (1971) The metaphoric and metonymic poles. InR. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (2nd ed., pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lamb, S. M.
    (1999) Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.170
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.170 [Google Scholar]
  42. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.–). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2006) On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/COG.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2009) Constructions and constructional meaning. InV. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.17lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.17lan [Google Scholar]
  46. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lorenz, D.
    (2020) Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.07lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.07lor [Google Scholar]
  48. Nosofsky, R. M.
    (1988) Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, (), –. 10.1037/0278‑7393.14.1.54
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.54 [Google Scholar]
  49. Percillier, M.
    (2020) Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per [Google Scholar]
  50. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  51. Pijpops, D.
    (2020) What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij [Google Scholar]
  52. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B.
    (1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, (), –. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2016) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Smirnova, E.
    (2021) Horizontal links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. InM. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.32.07smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.32.07smi [Google Scholar]
  56. Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L.
    (2020) Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.int [Google Scholar]
  57. Sommerer, L.
    (2020a) Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.02som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.02som [Google Scholar]
  58. (2020b) Why we avoid the ‘multiple inheritance’ issue in Usage-based cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1075/bjl.00056.som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00056.som [Google Scholar]
  59. Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  60. Touretzky, D. S.
    (1986) The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Ungerer, T.
    (2023) Structural priming in the grammatical network. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.35 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang, D., & Powers, D. M. W.
    (2005) Measuring semantic similarity in the taxonomy of WordNet. InV. Estivill-Castro (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Australasian Computer Science Conference – Volume 38 (pp.–). Australian Computer Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zehentner, E.
    (2019) Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110633856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 [Google Scholar]
  65. Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2020) Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22011.ung
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22011.ung
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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