1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 12, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study introduces a method that can be used to explore in a quantitatively rigorous yet less demanding way (both in terms of data and statistical requirements) how constructional templates and their lexical preferences (lexico-syntactic transference) diffuse in language contact situations. The study investigates the influence of Mexican Spanish similative-pretence constructions on Huasteca Nahuatl similative-pretence constructions as a proof-of-concept kind of application for our method. Speakers of Huasteca Nahuatl have borrowed the markers ‘like’ and ‘as if’ from Mexican Spanish to express similative (e.g., ) and pretence meanings (e.g., ), respectively. Using a conditional inference forest, the paper demonstrates that speakers of Huasteca Nahuatl have not only borrowed these markers from Mexican Spanish, but also lexical preferences (e.g., verb lemmas) of the constructions in which these markers occur. These findings show that the rigid partition of structural levels that has been adopted by traditional models of language contact proves inadequate for describing complex language situations. The method introduced here provides an integrative, non-modular way to explore language contact from a Usage-Based Construction Grammar perspective.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
2025-11-10
2025-12-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, G. D. S.
    (2005) Language contact in South Central Siberia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Batchelor, R., & Pountain, C. J.
    (2005) Using Spanish: A guide to contemporary usage (2nd edtion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Béchet, C.
    (2020) An empirical perspective on the contact between English and French: A case study on substitutive complex prepositions. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(2), Article 20180051. 10.1515/lingvan‑2018‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0051 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C., & Höder, S.
    (2018) Constructions in contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2021) Widening the scope: Recent trends in constructional contact linguistics. InH. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp.1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.30.01boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.01boa [Google Scholar]
  6. Bullock, B. E., Serigos, J., & Toribio, A. J.
    (2021) Exploring a loan translation and its consequences in an oral bilingual corpus. Journal of Language Contact, 13(3), 612–635. 10.1163/19552629‑bja10027
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-bja10027 [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, L.
    (1987) Syntactic change in Pipil. International Journal of American Linguistics, 53(3), 253–280. 10.1086/466058
     https://doi.org/10.1086/466058 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clyne, M.
    (2003) Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606526 [Google Scholar]
  9. Deshors, S. C., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2016) Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis to ing vs. to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(2), 192–218. 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.03des [Google Scholar]
  10. Field, F. W.
    (2002) Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.62
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.62 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flores Farfán, J. A.
    (2010) Sociolinguistics in Mexico: Defining new agendas. InM. Ball (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world (pp.34–41). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fuchs, C.
    (2014) La comparaison et son expression en français [Comparison and its expression in French]. Paris: Ophrys.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Grant, A. P.
    (2012) Contact, convergence, and conjunctions: A cross-linguistic study of borrowing correlations among certain kinds of discourse, phasal adverbial, and dependent clause markers. InC. Chamoreau & I. Léglise (Eds.), Dynamics of contact-induced language change (pp.311–358). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110271430.311
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271430.311 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 1–27. 10.1075/arcl.1.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.1.02gri [Google Scholar]
  15. (2021) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction (3rd revised and extended edition). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110718256
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, S. Th., & Hilpert, M.
    (2008) The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. 10.3366/E1749503208000075
     https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000075 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gries, S. Th., & Adelman, A. S.
    (2014) Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. InJ. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp.35–54). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑06007‑1_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06007-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hakimov, N., & Backus, A.
    (2021) Usage-based contact linguistics: Effects of frequency and similarity in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 13(3), 459–481. 10.1163/19552629‑13030009
     https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-13030009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hernandez-Mena, C.
    (2019) TEDx Spanish corpus. Audio and transcripts in Spanish taken from the TEDx Talks. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hetterle, K.
    (2015) Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110409857
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110409857 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hickey, R.
    (2010) The handbook of language contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318159
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hill, J. H., & Hill, K. C.
    (1986) Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, M.
    (2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 21, 243–256. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (Eds.) (2016) Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.82
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.82 [Google Scholar]
  25. Höder, S.
    (2012) Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. InK. Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp.241–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.13.17hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.13.17hod [Google Scholar]
  26. (2014) Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. InT. A. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp.137–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.154.07hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.154.07hod [Google Scholar]
  27. Hothorn, T., & Zeileis, A.
    (2015) Partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1), 3905–3909.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (1999) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?. Atlantis, 301, 15–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kroch, A.
    (1994) Morphosyntactic variation. InK. Beals (Ed.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory (pp.180–201). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Kusters, W.
    (2008) Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. InMiestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, and change (pp.3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.94.03kus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.03kus [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lara, L. F., Medina Urrea, A., Rosales Martínez, A., Diez Sánchez, C. F., & Serralde Galicia, J. L.
    (2018) El Corpus del español mexicano contemporáneo. https://cemcii.colmex.mx/
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Leclercq, B., & Morin, C.
    (2023) No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 15(1), 1–16. 10.24338/cons‑535
     https://doi.org/10.24338/cons-535 [Google Scholar]
  34. Leufkens, S.
    (2013) The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 28(2), 323–362. 10.1075/jpcl.28.2.03leu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.28.2.03leu [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindsay, M. & Aronoff, M.
    (2013) Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. InN. Hathout, F. Montermini & J. Tseng (Eds.), Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (pp.133–153). Munich: Lincom.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Matras, Y.
    (2007) The borrowability of structural categories. InY. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp.31–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199192.31
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192.31 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mithun, M.
    (1992) External triggers and internal guidance in syntactic development: Coordinating conjunction. InM. Gerritsen & D. Stein (Eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change (pp.89–130). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110886047.89
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886047.89 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2012) Exuberant complexity: The interplay of morphology, syntax, and prosody in Central Alaskan Yupʼik. Linguistic Discovery, 10(1), 5–26. 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.408
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.408 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2025) Constructions and language contact. InM. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.469–496). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009049139.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049139.019 [Google Scholar]
  40. Olguín Martínez, J.
    (2021) Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide perspective. Journal of Linguistic typology at the crossroads, 1(1), 2–33. 10.6092/issn.2785‑0943/13415
     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13415 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2024a) ‘Until’ clauses and expletive negation in Huasteca Nahuatl. Studies in Language, 481, 753–780. 10.1075/sl.22064.olg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.22064.olg [Google Scholar]
  42. (2024b) Semantically negative clause-linkage: ‘Let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications. Linguistic Typology, 28(1), 1–52. 10.1515/lingty‑2022‑0066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2022-0066 [Google Scholar]
  43. Olguín Martínez, J., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2024) If not for-if it weren’t/wasn’t for counterfactual constructions: A multivariate extension of collostructional analysis. Cognitive Semantics, 101, 158–189. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10067
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10067 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2025) The similative-pretence alternating pair and filler-slot relations: A revised version of distinctive collexeme analysis. Constructions and Frames, 17(1), 65–91. 10.1075/cf.23020.olg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.23020.olg [Google Scholar]
  45. Olko, J.
    (2020) Nahuas and Spaniards in contact: Cross-cultural transfer as seen through the Nahuatl lexicon. InA. Brylak, J. Madajczak, J. Olko & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Loans in colonial and modern Nahuatl: A contextual dictionary, (pp.10–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110591484‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110591484-002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Olko, J., Borges, R., & Sullivan, J.
    (2018) Convergence as the driving force of typological change in Nahuatl. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 71(3), 467–507. 10.1515/stuf‑2018‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2018-0018 [Google Scholar]
  47. Roberts, I., & Roussou, A.
    (2003) Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486326
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486326 [Google Scholar]
  48. Royo Viñuales, V., & Van linden, A.
    (2024) Beyond hypothetical manner: A functional typology of insubordinate como si-clauses. Folia Linguistica. 10.1515/flin‑2024‑2055
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2024-2055 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sakel, J.
    (2007) Types of loan: Matter and pattern. InY. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp.15–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199192.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199192.15 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schulze, W.
    (2017) Toward a cognitive typology of like-expressions. InY. Treis & M. Vanhove (Eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp.33–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.117.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.117.03sch [Google Scholar]
  51. Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  52. Stolz, C., & Stolz, T.
    (1996a) Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika: Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt [Function word borrowing in Mesoamerica: Spanish-Amerindian language contact]. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 49(1), 86–123. 10.1524/stuf.1996.49.1.86
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1996.49.1.86 [Google Scholar]
  53. (1996b) Transpazifische Entlehnungsisoglossen: Hispanismen in Funktionswortinventaren beiderseits der Datumsgrenze [Transpacific borrowing isoglosses: Hispanisms in function word inventories on both sides]. InN. Boretzky, W. Enninger, & T. Stolz (Eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen: Beiträge zum 10. Bochum-Essener-Symposium vom 30. 06.-01.07.1995 an der Universität GH Essen (pp.262–291). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Strobl, C., Rothacher, Y., Theiler, S., & Henninger, M.
    (2024) Detecting interactions with random forests: A comment on Gries’ words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. 10.1515/cllt‑2024‑0028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2024-0028 [Google Scholar]
  55. Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T.
    (1988) Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520912793
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520912793 [Google Scholar]
  56. Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Constructions in grammaticalization. InB. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Treis, Y.
    (2012) Switch-reference and Omotic-Cuhistic language contact in Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Language Contact, 5(1), 80–116. 10.1163/187740912X624469
     https://doi.org/10.1163/187740912X624469 [Google Scholar]
  59. Trudgill, P.
    (2009) Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. InG. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp.98–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199545216.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199545216.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  60. Trujillo, R.
    (1990) Sobre la explicación de algunas construcciones de ‘como’ [An explanation regarding constructions with como ‘like’]. Verba, (17), 249–266.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Whorf, B. L.
    (1946) The Milpa Alta dialect of Aztec (with notes on the Classical and the Tepoztlan dialects). InH. Hoijer (Ed.), Linguistic structures of Native America (pp.367–397). NewYork: Viking Fund Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Wiesinger, E.
    (2021) The Spanish verb-particle construction [V para atrás]: Disentangling constructional contact and change. InH. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp.139–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.30.06wie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.06wie [Google Scholar]
  63. Wilson, D. V.
    (2013) One construction, two source languages: Hacer with an English infinitive in bilingual discourse. InA. Carvalho & S. Beadrie (Eds.), Proceedings from the 6th International Workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics (pp.123–134). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wulff, S.
    (2008) Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-Froemel, E.
    (2019) Cognitive contact linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-induced variation and change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
Loading
Similative-pretence constructions in language contact situations
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 12, 292 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Huasteca Nahuatl; language contact; pretence; similatives; Spanish; usage-based

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