1887
image of Measure schematicity through information content

Abstract

Abstract

Apropos of the level of specificity, schematicity is the key indicator of grammaticalization in linguistics; compared to lexical items, the information provided by grammar patterns tends to be more abstract. With recourse to the notion of the quantifiable information content in information theory, the schematicity of a schema can be quantified by comparing the information content provided by the elements occurring in the open slots to that provided by the schema itself. A formula is thereby proposed to measure schematicity. This schematicity measure is able to illustrate the gradience and gradualness of grammaticalization in its applications in synchronic English data and diachronic Chinese data. Compared to previous measures of grammaticalization, there is a notable improvement in reliability and applicability.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00189.zha
2025-02-03
2025-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/lali.00189.zha/lali.00189.zha.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00189.zha&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco & Basciano, Bianca
    2012 On the productivity of the Chinese suffixes −兒 −r, −化 −huà and −頭 −tou. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics(). –. 10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3
    https://doi.org/10.6519/TJL.2012.10(2).3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. Harald
    1989A corpus-based study of morphological productivity: Statistical analysis and psychological interpretation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (Doctoral dissertation.)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 1992 Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. InBooij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, –. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2009 Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. InLüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol., –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. Harald & Lieber, Rochelle
    1991 Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassetti, Benedetta
    2005 Effects of writing systems on second language awareness: Word awareness in English learners of Chinese as a foreign language. InCook, Vivian & Bassetti, Benedatta (eds.), Second language writing systems, –. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597954‑015
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597954-015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bauer, Laurie
    1983English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2001Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brennan, Jonathan R. & Hale, John T.
    2019 Hierarchical structure guides rapid linguistic predictions during naturalistic listening. PLOS One(). –. (Article e0207741.) 10.1371/journal.pone.0207741
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207741 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, Joan L.
    2008 Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. InRobinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, –. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Correia Saavedra, David
    2021Measurements of grammaticalization: Developing a quantitative index for the study of grammatical change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110753073
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110753073 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coussé, Evie & Andersson, Peter & Olofsson, Joel
    2018 Grammaticalization meets construction grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. InCoussé, Evie & Andersson, Peter & Olofsson, Joel (eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c1 [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan
    2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  14. DeFrancis, John
    1984The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. 10.1515/9780824840303
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780824840303 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ding, Nai & Melloni, Lucia & Zhang, Hang & Tian, Xing & Poeppel, David
    2016 Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience(). –. 10.1038/nn.4186
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4186 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2002 Word: A typological framework. InDixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486241.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486241.002 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús
    2013 Morphological productivity measurement: Exploring qualitative versus quantitative approaches. English Studies(). –. 10.1080/0013838X.2013.780823
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2013.780823 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heine, Bernd
    1993Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195083873.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195083873.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Henderson, John M. & Choi, Wonil & Lowder, Matthew W. & Ferreira, Fernanda
    2016 Language structure in the brain: A fixation-related fMRI study of syntactic surprisal in reading. NeuroImage. –. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.050
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.050 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoosain, Rumjahn
    1992 Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. InChen, Hsuan-Chih & Tzeng, Ovid J. L. (eds.), Language processing in Chinese (Advances in Psychology 90), –. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)61889‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61889-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003Grammaticalization. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hung, Yueh-Nu
    2012 How a morphosyllabic writing system works in Chinese. InGoodman, Ken & Wang, Shaomei & Iventosch, Mieko Shimizu & Goodman, Yetta (eds.), Reading in Asian languages: Making sense of written texts in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, –. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hüning, Matthias & Booij, Geert
    2014 From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica(). –. 10.1515/flin.2014.019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.019 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette
    2008 Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics(). –. 10.1515/THLI.2008.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/THLI.2008.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lehmann, Christian
    2002 New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. InWischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.03leh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.03leh [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn.Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1981Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520352858
    https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Ping-Ping & Li, Wei-Jun & Lin, Nan & Li, Xing-Shan
    2013 Do Chinese readers follow the national standard rules for word segmentation during reading?PLOS One(). –. (Article e55440.) 10.1371/journal.pone.0055440
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055440 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lüdeling, Anke & Evert, Stefan & Heid, Ulrich
    2000 On measuring morphological productivity. InSchukat-Talamazzini, Ernst G. & Zühlke, Werner (eds.), KONVENS-2000 sprachkommunikation, –. Berlin: VDE-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. MacKay, David J. C.
    2003Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martin, Andrea E. & Doumas, Leonidas A. A.
    2017 A mechanism for the cortical computation of hierarchical linguistic structure. PLOS Biology(). –. (Article e2000663.) 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000663
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000663 [Google Scholar]
  35. Miller, Kevin F.
    2002 Children’s early understanding of writing and language: The impact of characters and alphabetic orthographies. InLi, Wenling & Gaffney, Janet S. & Packard, Jerome L. (eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑0859‑5_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0859-5_2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Norman, Jerry
    1988Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Packard, Jerome L.
    1998 Introduction. InPackard, Jerome L. (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110809084.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809084.1 [Google Scholar]
  38. Perek, Florent
    2018 Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory(). –. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  39. Saalbach, Henrik & Stern, Elsbeth
    2004 Differences between Chinese morphosyllabic and German alphabetic readers in the Stroop interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review(). –. 10.3758/BF03196624
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196624 [Google Scholar]
  40. Shannon, Claude E.
    1948a A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal(). –. 10.1002/j.1538‑7305.1948.tb01338.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [Google Scholar]
  41. 1948b A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal(). –. 10.1002/j.1538‑7305.1948.tb00917.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Sproat, Richard W. & Shih, Chilin & Gale, William & Chang, Nancy
    1996 A stochastic finite-state word-segmentation algorithm for Chinese. Computational Linguistics(). –.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sweetser, Eve E.
    1988 Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. InAxmaker, Shelley & Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774 [Google Scholar]
  44. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
    2010 Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?InTraugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.04tra [Google Scholar]
  45. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2008 Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. InEckardt, Regine & Jäger, Gerhard & Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110205398.3.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205398.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tuggy, David
    2007 Schematicity. InGeeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, –. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00189.zha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00189.zha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: information content ; quantitative ; grammaticalization ; schematicity
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