1887
Volume 22, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper describes a method to automatically identify stages of language change in diachronic corpus data, combining variability-based neighbour clustering, which offers objective and reproducible criteria for periodization, and distributional semantics as a representation of lexical meaning. This method partitions the history of a grammatical construction according to qualitative stages of productivity corresponding to different semantic sets of lexical items attested in it. Two case studies are presented. The first case study on the -construction (“Verb NP”) shows that the semantic development of a construction does not always match that of its quantitative aspects, like token or type frequency. The second case study on the -construction compares the results of the present method with those of collostructional analysis. It is shown that the former measures semantic changes and their chronology with greater precision. In sum, this method offers a promising approach to exploring semantic variation in the lexical fillers of constructions and to modelling constructional change.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
2017-12-01
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andrews, M. , Frank, S. , & Vigliocco, G.
    (2014) Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370. doi: 10.1111/tops.12096
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12096 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, H.
    (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp.109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol.2 (pp.899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, H. , & Lieber, R.
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. doi: 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bullinaria, J. , & Levy, J.
    (2007) Extracting semantic representations from word cooccurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526. doi: 10.3758/BF03193020
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193020 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J.
    (1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. doi: 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2010) Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J. , & Thompson, S.
    (1997) Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23, 65–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J. , & Eddington, D.
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  11. Colleman, T. , & De Clerck, B.
    (2011) Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    (2012) Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. doi: 10.3366/cor.2012.0024
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0024 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2009) Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.201–223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.24.16dab
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.16dab [Google Scholar]
  14. Dewey, T. K.
    (2006) The origins and development of Germanic V2: Evidence from alliterative verse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dinu, G. , Pham, N. T. , & Baroni, M.
    (2013) DISSECT: DIStributional SEmantics Composition Toolkit. InProceedings of the System Demonstrations of ACL 2013 (51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp.31–36). East Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Erk, K.
    (2012) Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. doi: 10.1002/lnco.362
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnco.362 [Google Scholar]
  17. Glenberg, A. M. , & Robertson, D. A. (2000) Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2714
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2714 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, S. , & Hilpert, M.
    (2008) The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. doi: 10.3366/E1749503208000075
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000075 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2010) From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 293–320. doi: 10.1017/S1360674310000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000092 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1). 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  22. Gries, S. , & Stoll, S.
    (2009) Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 217–242. doi: 10.1080/09296170902975692
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170902975692 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, M.
    (2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008) Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012a) Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp.133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012b) Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp.233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hock, H. H. , & Joseph, B. D.
    (1996) History, Language Change and Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoeksema, J. , & Napoli, D. J.
    (2008) Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 347–378. doi: 10.1017/S002222670800515X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670800515X [Google Scholar]
  30. Israel, M.
    (1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp.217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Landauer, T. K. , Foltz, P. W. , & Laham, D.
    (1998) Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. doi: 10.1080/01638539809545028
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lenci, A.
    (2008) Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 1–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lorenz, D.
    (2012) Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Freiburg, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lund, K. , Burgess, C. , & Atchley, R. A.
    (1995) Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.660–665). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Noël, D.
    (2008) The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340. doi: 10.1177/0075424208321750
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208321750 [Google Scholar]
  36. Noël, D. , & Colleman, T. (2010)  Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 157–182. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.15.2.02noe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.02noe [Google Scholar]
  37. Onysko, A. , & Calude, A.
    (2014) Comparing the usage of Maori loans in spoken and written New Zealand English: A case study of Maori, Pakeha, and Kiwi . In E. Zenner & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations (pp.143–169). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Perek, F.
    (2016a) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2016b) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Ahead-of-print. Retrieved from doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 (last accessedAugust 2017). doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosemeyer, M.
    (2014) Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.155
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.155 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  42. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Suttle, L. , & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugott, E. C. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Turney, P. , & Pantel, P.
    (2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37(1), 141–188.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Zeldes, A.
    (2012) Productivity in Argument Selection. From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110303919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303919 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constructions , diachrony , distributional semantics , periodization and productivity
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