1887
Volume 26, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the productivity of the subject complement slot in a set of French and Dutch (semi-)copular micro-constructions. The presumed counterpart of productivity, conventionalization in the form of high token frequency, will also be taken into account in the analysis of the productivity complex. On the one hand, it will be shown that prototypical copulas generally have a higher productivity than semi-copulas, although there are some semi-copulas that can rival the productivity of prototypical copulas. On the other hand, it will be demonstrated that high token frequency is in general detrimental to productivity, on the level of the entire subject complement slot and on the level of the different semantic classes. However, the shape of the frequency distribution also seems to play a role: multiple highly frequent types are in my data more detrimental to productivity than one extremely frequent type, although the semantic connectedness of the types in the distribution might also be an explanatory factor.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
2021-08-03
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, H.
    (1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp.181–208). Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3710‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, H.
    (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. InA. Lüdeling, M. Kytö, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics (pp.899–919). De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baroni, M., & Evert, S.
    (2014) The zipfR Package for Lexical Statistics: A Tutorial Introduction. zipfr.r-forge.r-project.org/materials/zipfrtutorial.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
    (2012) Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp.129–152). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-007 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
    (2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. 10.1353/lan.2006.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0081 [Google Scholar]
  9. Colleman, T.
    (2009) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31(5), 593–611. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cvrček, V.
    (2011, July). How large is the core of language? [Paper presentation]. Sixth International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2011/Paper-145.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Declerck, R.
    (1988) Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110869330
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  12. Desagulier, G.
    (2016) A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 173–219. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Smet, H.
    (2020) What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278. 10.1515/cog‑2019‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0026 [Google Scholar]
  14. Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M.
    (2016) Frequency effects in grammar. InM. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120 [Google Scholar]
  15. Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L.
    (2015) Frequency and entrenchment. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.53–75). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D.
    (2006) Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. 10.1515/LING.2006.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Geeraerts, D.
    (2017) Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp.153–174). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 369–390. 10.1017/langcog.2016.17
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.17 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2015) Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. 10.1111/lang.12119
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hengeveld, K.
    (1992) Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883282
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883282 [Google Scholar]
  22. Higgins, F. R.
    (1979) The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, M.
    (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J.
    (2011) Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example using R. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Jolliffe, I. T.
    (2002) Principal Component Analysis. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kassambara, A.
    (2017) Practical Guide to Principal Component Methods in R. CreateSpace.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–37. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lamiroy, B., & Melis, L.
    (2005) Les copules ressemblent-elles aux auxiliaires? [Do copulas resemble auxiliaries?] InH. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & N. Le Querler (Eds.), Les Périphrases Verbales [Verbal Periphrases] (pp.145–170). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lis.25.12lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.25.12lam [Google Scholar]
  29. Lauwers, P.
    (2008) Les emplois attributifs de faire [Copular uses of faire]. Studia Neophilologica, 80(1), 43–64. 10.1080/00393270701679940
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393270701679940 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2009) La prédication ‘attributive’: Portée, structuration interne et statut théorique [‘Copular’ predication: Range, internal structuration and theoretical status]. InA. H. Ibrahim (Ed.), Prédicats, Prédication et Structures Prédicatives [Predicates, Predication and Predicational Structures] (pp.178–202). CRL.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lauwers, P., & Tobback, E.
    (2010) Les verbes attributifs: Inventaire(s) et statut(s) [Copular Verbs: Inventor(-y/-ies) and Status(es)]. Langages, 179–180(3), 79–113. 10.3917/lang.179.0079
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.179.0079 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lauwers, P., & Van Wettere, N.
    (2018) Virer et tourner attributifs: De l’analyse quantitative des cooccurrences aux contrastes sémantiques [Copular virer and tourner: From a quantitative cooccurrence analysis to semantic contrasts]. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63(3), 1–37. 10.1017/cnj.2018.2
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2018.2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
    (2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. 10.18637/jss.v025.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01 [Google Scholar]
  34. Legallois, D., & Gréa, P.
    (2007) L’objectif de cet article est de … : Construction spécificationnelle et grammaire phraséologique [The objective of this article is to …: Specificational construction and phraseological grammar]. Cahiers de Praxématique, 46, 161–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  36. Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., & Van Kemenade, A.
    (2012) Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511998447
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511998447 [Google Scholar]
  37. Morimoto, Y., & Pavón Lucero, M. V.
    (2007) Los Verbos Pseudo-copulativos del Español [Pseudo-Copular Verbs in Spanish]. Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Moro, A.
    (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  39. Riegel, M.
    (2005) Forme et interprétation des phrases copulatives à deux groupes nominaux définis [Form and interpretation of copular phrases with two definite nominal groups]. InC. Molinier & I. Choi-Jonin (Eds.), Questions de Classification en Linguistique: Méthodes et Descriptions: Mélanges Offertes au Professeur Christian Molinier [Classification Questions in Linguistics: Methods and Descriptions: Collection of Essays Offered to Professor Christian Molinier] (pp.299–317). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stassen, L.
    (1997) Intransitive Predication. Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S.
    (2017) The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp.101–127). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-006 [Google Scholar]
  43. Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. 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 University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tweedie, F. J., & Baayen, R. H.
    (1998) How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 32, 323–352. 10.1023/A:1001749303137
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1001749303137 [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Eynde, F.
    (2015) Predicative Constructions: A Monostratal Montagovian Treatment. CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Eynde, F., Augustinus, L., Schuurman, I., & Vandeghinste, V.
    (2014) Het verrassende resultaat van een copulativiteitspeiling [The surprising result of a copularity investigation]. InF. Van de Velde, H. Smessaert, F. Van Eynde, & S. Verbrugge (Eds.), Patroon en Argument: een Dubbelfeestbundel bij het Emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and Argument: A Double Festschrift for Emeritus Professors William Van Belle and Joop van der Horst] (pp.47–62). Universitaire Pers Leuven. 10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.6
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14jxsr0.6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Wettere, N.
    (2018) Copularité et Productivité: Une Analyse Contrastive des Verbes Attributifs Issus de Verbes de Mouvement en Français et en Néerlandais [Copularity and Productivity: A Contrastive Analysis of Copular Verbs Originating from Motion Verbs in French and Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University]. Academic Bibliography @ Ghent University. hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8585791
  49. Van Wettere, N., & Lauwers, P.
    (2017) La micro-constructionnalisation en tandem: La copularisation de tourner et virer [Micro-constructionalization in tandem: The copularization of tourner and virer]. Langue française, 194(2), 85–104. 10.3917/lf.194.0085
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.194.0085 [Google Scholar]
  50. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructiegrammatica en usage based taalkunde [Construction grammar and usage-based linguistics]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 10, 197–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wulff, S.
    (2008) Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zeldes, A.
    (2012) Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110303919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303919 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zeschel, A.
    (2012) Incipient Productivity: A Construction-based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274844
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conventionalization; copular construction; productivity; prototypicality; semi-copula
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