Article published in:
Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar
Edited by Jiyoung Yoon and Stefan Th. Gries
[Constructional Approaches to Language 19] 2016
► pp. 165–198

Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation

In semantic studies of argument structure alternations as well as in psycholinguistic studies on syntactic priming, lexical alternation biases are typically measured at the level of the verb lexeme. This study explores the hypothesis that the proper locus of subcategorization probabilities is the verb sense. It investigates the effects of lexical polysemy on the subcategorization probabilities of Dutch dative alternating verbs as reflected in frequency data from natural language corpora and from a priming experiment. A sense-based distinctive collexeme analysis on the corpus data indicates that distinct senses of the same verb may indeed display different alternation biases. The response patterns in our priming experiment suggest that language users keep track of verb subcategorization preferences at different levels of schematization.
Published online: 08 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.07ber
References

References

Bernolet, Sarah
(2008) Lexical-syntactic representations in bilingual sentence production. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Colleman, Timothy, & Hartsuiker, Robert J.
(2014) ‘The “sense boost” to dative priming: evidence for sense-specific verb-structure links. Journal of Memory and Language, 76, 113–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, & Hartsuiker, Robert J.
(2010) Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114, 455–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., & Pickering, Martin J.
(2007) Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 931–949. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, Fraser A.
(1987) Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organisation for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 13, 582–594. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn
(1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Baayen, Harald R.
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
(2009a) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the Dutch dative alternation. Language Sciences, 31, 593–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) The semantic range of the Dutch double object construction. A collostructional perspective. Constructions and Frames, 1, 190–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Beyond the dative alternation: The semantics of the Dutch aan-dative. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 271–303). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, & Bernolet, Sarah
(2012) Alternation biases in corpora vs. picture description experiments: DO-biased and PD-biased verbs in the Dutch dative alternation. In D. Divjak & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (pp. 87–125). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, & De Clerck, Bernard
(2009) ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 5–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, C.L.
(2006) Semiotaxis. Over theoretische en Nederlandse syntaxis [Semiotaxis. On theoretical and Dutch syntax]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Estival, Dominique
(1985) Syntactic priming of the passive in English. Text, 5, 7–22. Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
(1977) Topics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (Ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory (pp. 76–138). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, & Garnsey, Susan M.
(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80, 748–775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
(1998) The semantic structure of the indirect object in Dutch. In W. van Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The Dative. Volume II: Theoretical and Contrastive Studies (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam/: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
(2006) The verb slot in causative constructions. Finding the best fit. Constructions, 1–3.Google Scholar
(2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
(1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 37–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Constructions: A construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 327–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 131–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin, & Sethuraman, Nitya
(2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
(2003) Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Coll.analysis 3.0. A program for R for Windows.Google Scholar
(2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 365–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora, 1, 109–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate, & Schönefeld, Doris
(2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 635–676. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Deygers, Katrien, Van Aken, Hilde, Van den Heede, Vicky, & Speelman, Dirk
(2000) Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV corpus of spoken Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5, 356–363.Google Scholar
GVD = den Boon, Ton, & Geeraerts, Dirk
(Eds.) (2006) Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal [Van Dale Comprehensive Dictionary of the Dutch Language]. 14th, revised edition. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary, McRae, Ken, & Elman, Jeffrey L.
(2003) Sense and structure: meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 281–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 181–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Bernolet, Sarah, Schoonbaert, Sofie, Speybroek, Sara, & Vanderelst, Dieter
(2008) Syntactic priming persists but the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 214–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., & Kolk, H.H.J.
(1998) Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech, 41, 143–184.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
(2008) Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian
(2008) Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Snider, Neal
(2007) Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences, 3, 26–44.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo
(1997) Giving in Dutch: An intra-lexematical and inter-lexematical description. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of giving (pp. 267–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S., Verhagen, Arie, & Willemsen, Mariëtte
(1987) Over PP’s, transitiviteit en het zgn. indirekt objekt [On PPs, transitivity and the so-called indirect object]. Spektator, 14, 341–347.Google Scholar
Kooij, J.G.
(1975) Diachronic aspects of idiom formation. In A. Kraak (Ed.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1972/73 (pp. 122–127). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter
(2010) Comment dissocier des locutions prépositives quasi-synonymiques?: Essai d’analyse collostructionnelle. Revue canadienne de linguistique, 55, 55–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, Geeraerts, Dirk, & Speelman, Dirk
(2010) Changing the world vs. changing the mind: Distinctive collexeme analysis of the causative construction with doen in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. In F. Gregersen, J. Parrot, & P. Quist (Eds.), Language variation – european perspectives III. Selected papers from the 5th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, Copenhagen, June 2009 (pp. 111–123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda, & Potter, Mary C.
(1992) The regeneration of syntax in short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 713–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noël, Dirk, & Colleman, Timothy
(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, 157–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., & Branigan, Holly
(1998) The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 633–651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., & Ferreira, Victor S.
(2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roland, Douglas, & Jurafsky, Daniel
(2002) Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In P. Merlo & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The Lexical basis of sentence processing: Formal, computational, and experimental issues (pp. 325–345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, E.C.
(1991) Substantiële versus formele taalbeschrijving: het indirect object in het Nederlands [Formal versus substantial language analysis: The indirect object in Dutch]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
(2001) Grammatica, lexicon en de dubbel-objectsconstructie in het Nederlands en Engels [Grammar, lexicon and the double object construction in Dutch and English]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 6, 22–37.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
(2006) Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 61–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strik Lievers, Francesca
(2011) Constructing judgments: The interaction between adjectives and clausal complements. In M. Kokopka et al. (Eds.), Grammatik und Korpora 2009. Dritte Internationale Konferenz. Mannheim, 22.4.–24.9.2009 (pp. 287–304). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme
(2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C., & Kim, Albert E.
(1998) How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 101–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Belle, William, & Van Langendonck, W.
(1996) The indirect object in Dutch. In W. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), The dative. Volume 1: Descriptive studies (pp. 217–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniël
(2008) Initial parsing decisions and lexical bias: Corpus evidence from local NP/S-ambiguities. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 439–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
(1986) The semantics of ‘internal dative’ in English. Quaderni di Semantica, 7, 121–35.Google Scholar
Wilson, Michael P., & Garnsey, Susan M.
(2008) Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 368–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
(2006)  Go–V vs. go–and–V in English: a case of constructional synonymy? In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–125). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Gries, Stefan Th.
2019. 15 years of collostructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 385 ff. Crossref logo
Romain, Laurence
2021. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 0:0 Crossref logo
Wiliński, Jarosław
2017.  On the brink of-Noun Vs. On the verge of-noun: a distinctive-collexeme analysis. Research in Language 15:4 ► pp. 425 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.