1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 27, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents evidence from both corpora and agent-based simulation for the effect of lectal contamination. By doing so, it shows how agent-based simulation can be used as a complementary technique to corpus research in the study of language variation. Lectal contamination is an effect whereby the words that are typical of a language variety more often appear in a morphosyntactic variant typical of that same variety, even among language use from a different variety. This study looks at the Dutch partitive genitive construction, which exhibits variation between a “Netherlandic” variant with - ending and a “Belgian” variant without - ending. It is shown that the probability of the Belgian variant without - increases among more “Belgian” words, in the language use of both Belgians and people from the Netherlands. Meanwhile, an agent-based simulation reveals the crucial theoretical preconditions that lead to this effect.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
2022-06-13
2024-12-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20040.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. Algeo, J.
    (2006) British or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607240
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607240 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
    (2010) More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4(Version 1.4) [Computer software]. cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentivoglio, P., & Sedano, M.
    (2011) Morphosyntactic variation in Spanish–speaking Latin America. InM. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics (pp.123–147). Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444393446.ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444393446.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beuls, K., & Steels, L.
    (2013) Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of grammatical agreement. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e58960. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058960
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058960 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F.
    (2015) An agent-based model of a historical word order change. InR. Berwick, A. Korhonen, A. Lenci, T. Poibeau, & A. Villavicencio (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning (pp.22–27). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W15‑2404
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-2404 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blythe, R., & Croft, W.
    (2012) S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language, 88(2), 269–304. 10.1353/lan.2012.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0027 [Google Scholar]
  9. Broekhuis, H.
    (2013) Syntax of Dutch: Adjectives and Adjective Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek
    Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (n.d.). RetrievedMarch 13, 2020, fromhttps://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83926NED/barv?dl=17256&ts=1584114358740
  13. Claes, J.
    (2015) Competing constructions: The pluralization of presentational haber in Dominican Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 1–30. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0006 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. Daems, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2015) Wat dragen we vandaag: een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje? [What do we wear today: A ‘hemd’ with a ‘blazer’ or a ‘shirt’ with a ‘jasje’?] Taal En Tongval, 67(2), 307–342. 10.5117/TET2015.2.DAEM
     https://doi.org/10.5117/TET2015.2.DAEM [Google Scholar]
  17. Davies, M.
    (2004) British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). RetrievedJanuary, 2020, fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). RetrievedJanuary, 2020, fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  19. De Vylder, B.
    (2007) The Evolution of Conventions in Multi-agent Systems [Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel]. https://langev.com/pdf/deVylder07evoltionOfConventionsPHD.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.296–322). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 [Google Scholar]
  21. (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]
  22. Dürscheid, C., Elspaß, S. & Ziegler, A.
    (Eds.) (2018) Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen. Ein Online-Nachschlagewerk [Variant grammar of Standard German. An online reference work]. mediawiki.ids-mannheim.de/VarGra/index.php/Substantive_auf_-ation_/_-ung
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fagyal, Z., Swarup, S., Escobar, A. M., Gasser, L., & Lakkaraju, K.
    (2010) Centers and peripheries: Network roles in language change. Lingua, 120(8), 2061–2079. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Friendly, M., Hong, J., Andersen, R., Firth, D., & Taylor, S.
    (2016) Effect Displays for Linear, Generalized Linear, and Other Models(Version 3.2) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/effects/
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D.
    (1999) Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and divergence in Dutch vocabulary: A study into clothing and football terminology]. P. J. Meertens-Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gelman, A., & Hill, J.
    (2007) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gilbert, N.
    (2008) Agent-based Models. Sage. 10.4135/9781412983259
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983259 [Google Scholar]
  28. Haeseryn, W.
    (2013) Belgian Dutch. InF. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and Space: Dutch (pp.700–720). De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.
    (1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammer]. Nijhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Harrell, F. J.
    (2017) Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous(Version 4.0-3) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/package=Hmisc
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hay, J.
    (2018) Sociophonetics: The role of words, the role of context, and the role of words in context. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(4), 696–706. 10.1111/tops.12326
     https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12326 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hay, J., Walker, A., Sanchez, K., & Thompson, K.
    (2019) Abstract social categories facilitate access to socially skewed words. PLoS ONE, 14(2), e0210793. 10.1371/journal.pone.0210793
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210793 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hilpert, M., & Flach, S.
    (forthcoming). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. InM. Grygiel Ed. Contrast and Analogy in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Höder, S.
    (2014) Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. InT. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar (pp.137–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.154.07hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.154.07hod [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. InH. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic languages (pp.37–70). Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.24.02hod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.02hod [Google Scholar]
  36. Jaeger, H., Steels, L., Baronchelli, A., Briscoe, T., Christiansen, M., Griffiths, T., Jäger, G., Kirby, S., Komarova, N., Peter, R., & Jochen, T.
    (2009) What can mathematical, computational, and robotic models tell us about the origins of syntax?InBiological Foundations and Origin of Syntax. The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262013567.003.0018
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262013567.003.0018 [Google Scholar]
  37. Karjus, A., & Ehala, M.
    (2018) Testing an agent-based model of language choice on sociolinguistic survey data. Language Dynamics and Change, 8(2), 219–252. 10.1163/22105832‑00802004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-00802004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Landsbergen, F.
    (2009) Cultural Evolutionary Modeling of Patterns in Language Change: Exercises in Evolutionary Linguistics. LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Landsbergen, F., Lachlan, R., ten Cate, C., & Verhagen, A.
    (2010) A cultural evolutionary model of patterns in semantic change. Linguistics, 48(2), 363. 10.1515/ling.2010.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.012 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K.
    (2020) vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data(Version 1.4-6) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/index.html
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Oostdijk, N., Goedertier, W., Van Eynde, F., Boves, L., Martens, J.-P., Moortgat, M., & Baayen, H.
    (2002) Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 340–347.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I.
    (2013a) SoNaR User Documentation (version 1.0.4). https://ticclops.uvt.nl/SoNaR_end-user_documentation_v.1.0.4.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013b) 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). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑30910‑6_13
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  45. Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2015) Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–127. 10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  46. Pérez-Martín, A. M.
    (2007) Pluralización de había en el habla de El Hierro: Datos cuantitativos [Pluralization of había in the speech of El Hierro: Quantitative data]. Revista de Filología de La Universidad de La Laguna, 25, 505–513.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Phan, D., & Varenne, F.
    (2010) Agent-based models and simulations in economics and social sciences. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13(4), 1532. 10.18564/jasss.1532
     https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.1532 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pijpops, D.
    (2019) How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary? A Usage-Based Investigation into the Dutch Transitive-Prepositional Alternation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/2815151
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Pijpops, D., & Beuls, K.
    (2015) Agent-gebaseerde modellering in de historische taalkunde. Een model van regularisatiedruk op de Nederlandse werkwoorden [Agent-based modelling in historical linguistics: A model of the regularization pressure on Dutch verbs]. Handelingen Der Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Taal- En Letterkunde En Geschiedenis, 69, 5–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 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]
  51. Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2018) Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10(2), 269–305. 10.1075/cf.00021.pij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij [Google Scholar]
  52. 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]
  53. (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]
  54. (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]
  55. Plevoets, K.
    (2008) Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands [Between language for speaking and standard language. A corpus-based study to the situational, regional and social diffusion of a number of morphosyntactic features of spoken Belgian Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1821028
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ruette, T.
    (2012) Aggregating Lexical Variation: Towards Large-scale Lexical Lectometry [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1821265
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Ruette, T., Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2016) A lectometric analysis of aggregated lexical variation in written Standard English with Semantic Vector Space models. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(1), 48–79. 10.1075/ijcl.21.1.03rue
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.1.03rue [Google Scholar]
  58. Sonderegger, M., Wagner, M., & Torreira, F.
    (2018) Quantitative Methods for Linguistic Data. people.linguistics.mcgill.ca/~morgan/book/
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Speelman, Dirk
    (2014) Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (pp.487–533). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.18spe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.18spe [Google Scholar]
  60. Speelman, D., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2018) Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69830‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69830-4 [Google Scholar]
  61. Steels, L.
    (2011) Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews, 8(4), 339–356. 10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014 [Google Scholar]
  62. (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). Springer. 10.1007/3‑540‑45356‑3_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45356-3_2 [Google Scholar]
  63. Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2010) Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. InD. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and Communication (pp.151–173). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C.
    (2011) Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00622.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x [Google Scholar]
  65. van Agtmaal-Wobma, E., Harmsen, C., Dal, L., & Poulain, M.
    (2007) Belgen in Nederland en Nederlanders in België [Belgians in the Netherlands and Dutchmen in Belgium]. Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (CBS). https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/imported/documents/2008/02/2007-k4-b15-p47-art.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  66. van den Toorn, M. C.
    (1977) Nederlandse Grammatica [Dutch Grammar] (5th ed.). Wolters-Noordhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. van der Horst, J.
    (2008) Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Universitaire Pers Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. van Eerten, L.
    (2007) Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [About the Corpus of Spoken Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 12(3), 194–215.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L.
    (2009) Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. van Trijp, R., & Steels, L.
    (2012) Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems, 15(3–4). 10.1142/S0219525912500397
     https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525912500397 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wellens, P.
    (2012) Adaptive Strategies in the Emergence of Lexical Systems. Dissertation Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Wieling, M., & Nerbonne, J.
    (2015) Advances in dialectometry. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 243–264. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑124930
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124930 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
Loading
Lectal contamination
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27, 259 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): agent-based modelling; lectal contamination; mixed regression modelling; partitive genitive; simulation

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