1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Contingency and prototypicality
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

This paper offers some observations on the learning of argument structure constructions as well as recommendations for teaching argument structure constructions to intermediate to advanced learners, notably argument structure constructions that could be considered to alternate such as the intransitive non-causative construction (INCCx) and the transitive causative construction (TCCx). Our aim is to show that for such schematic argument constructions, generalisations emerge from the interaction between the verb, its arguments and the construction(s) they occur in. Through a distributional semantics analysis of the themes (the argument in subject position in the INCCx and object position in the TCCx), we start by identifying constructional meaning for each construction. Then, through computational simulations of learning we identify which elements in the constructions are the most reliable cues for learners to choose one or the other construction. This work is inspired by constructional approaches to language (e.g., Goldberg, 1995) and learning theory (for linguistics, e.g., Skinner, 1957). Through our constructional approach and learning simulations, we identify characteristics for each construction that can be used to teach learners the use of each construction generally. We also observe that the TCCx appears easier to learn and potentially more productive than the INCCx and provide examples of pedagogical materials.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
2025-11-17
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/pl.25006.rom/pl.25006.rom.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J. L., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., … Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper. Language Learning, (), –. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernolet, S., & Colleman, T.
    (2016) Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. InJ. Yoon & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.19.07ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.07ber [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2009) Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00899.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00899.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  5. (2012) Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
     [Google Scholar]
  8. De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
    (2024) The ditransitive construction and the double accusative construction as allostructions: Corpus-based analysis and pedagogical applications. Ampersand, . 10.1016/j.amper.2024.100176
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2024.100176 [Google Scholar]
  9. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The Grammar Network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  10. Divjak, D.
    (2017) The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, , –. 10.1111/cogs.12335
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12335 [Google Scholar]
  11. Divjak, D., & Milin, P.
    (2023) Ten lectures on language as cognition. A multi-method approach (Vol.). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004532816
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004532816 [Google Scholar]
  12. Divjak, D., Romain, L., & Milin, P.
    (2023) From their point of view: The article category as a hierarchically structured referent tracking system. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2022‑0186
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2022-0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. Divjak, D., Testini, I., & Milin, P.
    (2024) On the nature and organistion of morphological categories: verbal aspect through the lens of associative learning. Morphology, , –. 10.1007/s11525‑024‑09423‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-024-09423-0 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dowty, David
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. In: Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006a) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/ami038
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2006b) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/aml015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, Nick C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2016) Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar (Language Learning Monograph Series). Malden, MA: Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ez-Zizi, A., Divjak, D., & Milin, P.
    (2023) Error-correction mechanisms in language learning: Modeling individuals. Language Learning, Ahead of print. 10.1111/lang.12569
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12569 [Google Scholar]
  20. Faulhaber, S.
    (2011) Idiosincrasy in verb valency pattern. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0405
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0405 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gentner, D., & Medina, J.
    (1998) Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, , –. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00002‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00002-X [Google Scholar]
  22. Gilquin, G.
    (2014) Making sense of collostructional analysis. On the interplay between verb senses and constructions. Constructions and Frames, (), –. 10.1075/cf.5.2.01gil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.2.01gil [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, (), –. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  28. Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M.
    (2020) The International Corpus of Learner English. Version. Louvain La-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010) Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. InS. Rice & J. Newman (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp.–). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
    (2006) Syntactic leaps or lexical creation? More on ‘creative syntax’. InS. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics (pp.–). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.127
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.127 [Google Scholar]
  32. Herbst, T.
    (2011) The status of generalizations: valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, (), –. 10.1515/zaa‑2011‑0406
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) Is language a collostructicon? A proposal for looking at collocations, valency, argument structure and other constructions. InP. Cantos-Gómez & M. A. Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical Collocational Analysis: Advances and Applications (pp.–). Cham: Springer10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92582‑0_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92582-0_1 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilpert, M., & Perek, F.
    (2015) Meaning change in a petri dish: constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistic Vanguard. 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Israel, M.
    (1996) The Way Constructions Grow. InA. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.–). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackendoff, R.
    (1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lemmens, M.
    (1998) Lexical perspectives on transitivity and ergativity. Causative constructions in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.166
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.166 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lenci, A.
    (2008) Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di linguistica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M.
    (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  42. Levshina, N., & Heylen, K.
    (2014) A radically data-driven Construction Grammar: Experiments with Dutch causative constructions. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp.–). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110366273.17
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.17 [Google Scholar]
  43. MacWhinney, B.
    (1987) The Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp.–). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2013) The logic of the unified model. InS. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.–). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D.
    (1993) Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, , –. 10.1006/cogp.1993.1011
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1011 [Google Scholar]
  46. OED Online
    OED Online (2018) Oxford University Press.
  47. Padó, S., & Lapata, M.
    (2003) Constructing semantic space models from parsed corpora. Proceedings of the 41st Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, –. 10.3115/1075096.1075113
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075113 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pavlov, I.
    (1927) Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Peirsman, Y., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D.
    (2010) The automatic identification of lexical variations between language varieties. Natural Language Engineering, (), –. 10.1017/S1351324910000161
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324910000161 [Google Scholar]
  50. Perek, F.
    (2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: the case of the English conative construction. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. (pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  51. (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantics analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (). 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2021) Distributional semantic models for english verbs and nouns. Available at: 10.17605/OSF.IO/N324F
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N324F [Google Scholar]
  54. Princeton University
    Princeton University (2010) About WordNet. Available at: wordnet.princeton.edu
  55. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R.
    (1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. InA. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning ll: Curent research and theory (pp.–). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Romain, L.
    (2018) Measuring the alternation strength of causative verbs. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the interaction between verb, theme and construction. Belgian Journal of Linguistics(), –. 10.1075/bjl.00009.rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00009.rom [Google Scholar]
  57. (2022) Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0021 [Google Scholar]
  58. Romain, L., & Divjak, D.
    (2025) The types of cues that help you learn. Pedagogical implications of a computational simulation on learning the English tense/aspect system from exposure. Pedagogical Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/pl.23003.rom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23003.rom [Google Scholar]
  59. Romain, L., Ez-Zizi, A., Milin, P., & Divjak, D.
    (2022) What makes the past perfect and the future progressive? Experiential coordinates for a learnable, context-based model of tense and aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, (). 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0006 [Google Scholar]
  60. Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D.
    (2024) Order effects in second language learning. Language Learning, Advance online publication. 10.1111/lang.12675
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12675 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sahlgren, M.
    (2008) The distributional hypothesis. Rivista di linguistica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C.
    (1975) A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, (), –. 10.1145/361219.361220
     https://doi.org/10.1145/361219.361220 [Google Scholar]
  63. Schütze, H.
    (1992) Dimensions of meaning. InR. Werner (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1992 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (pp.–). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. 10.1109/SUPERC.1992.236684
     https://doi.org/10.1109/SUPERC.1992.236684 [Google Scholar]
  64. Skinner, B. F.
    (1957) Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 10.1037/11256‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11256-000 [Google Scholar]
  65. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  66. Tachihara, K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2024) Learning Unacceptability: Repeated Exposure to Acceptable Sentences Improves Adult Learners’ Recognition of Unacceptable Sentences. Language Learning, Advance online publication. 10.1111/lang.12660
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12660 [Google Scholar]
  67. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Turney, P. D., & Pantel, P.
    (2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, , –. 10.1613/jair.2934
     https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934 [Google Scholar]
  69. Yi, E., Koenig, J.-P., & Roland, D.
    (2019) Semantic similarity to high-frequency verbs affects syntactic frame selection. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0029 [Google Scholar]
  70. Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2018) The Instructed Learning of Form-Function Mappings in the English Article System. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/modl.12449
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12449 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
Loading
Contingency and prototypicality
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: cue validity ; causative constructions ; learning algorithm ; syntactic alternations ; construction grammar ; distributional semantics

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