(Re)shaping the constructional network
Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network
hierarchy
This paper takes a dynamic perspective on
constructional networks by investigating which factors play a role
in the architecture of the network and how its internal structure
may be reorganized over time. It starts from the idea that the
network hierarchy is constantly being reconfigured: new
generalizations may give rise to new subschemas, and existing
subschemas can move up to a higher level or, conversely, subschemas
may marginalize and eventually disappear completely. Such network
shifts typically involve changes in schematicity (viz. the level of
abstractness) and/or productivity (viz. the extensibility of the
(sub)schema). An ideal candidate to investigate these productivity
shifts and internal reorganizations is the Dutch intensifying fake
reflexive resultative construction. In present-day Dutch, the
network of this construction displays an intriguing combination of
subschemas at different levels of abstraction, displaying varying
degrees of productivity, as well as conventionalized or even
fossilized micro-constructions. Tracing back the recent history of
this construction, the paper aims to show how mechanisms like
schematization and conventionalization work together in creating the
constructicon’s network structure, and how certain constructional
changes can be (re)interpreted as shifts within the constructional
network. It will be discussed what new insights can be gained from
such a network approach and which further steps may be taken to
further flesh out the theory on constructional networks.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Tracking constructional changes: Empirical analysis of the Dutch intensifying fake reflexive
resultative construction
- 2.1Methodology
- 2.2Results: Diachronic frequency and productivity increase
- 3.A dynamic constructional network: Shifts at different levels of abstraction
- 3.1Expansion and schematization
- 3.1.1Case 1:
Suf
- 3.1.2Case 2:
Het vuur uit de sloffen
- 3.1.3Discussion
- 3.2Conventionalization and loss
- 4.Discussion: Challenges in constructional network theory
- 4.1Multiple representations
- 4.2Other types of links?
- 4.3Cognitive reality
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M.
(
1999)
Using
dictionairies to study the mental
lexicon.
Brain and
Language, 68, 16–26.


Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S.
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
(
2011)
West
Scandinavian Ditransitives as a Family of Constructions:
With a Special Attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP
Construction.
Linguistics, 49(1), 53–104.


Bolinger, D. L.
(
1972)
Degree
words. Den Haag/Paris: Mouton.


Bybee, J.
(
1995)
Regular
morphology and the
lexicon.
Language and
Cognitive
Processes, 10(5), 425–455.


Bybee, J., & Thompson, S.
(
1997)
Three
Frequency Effects in
Syntax.
Proceedings of the
Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and
Grammatical
Structure, 23, 378–388.


De Clerck, B., & Colleman, T.
(
2013)
From
noun to intensifier: massa and
massa’s in Flemish varieties of
Dutch.
Language
Sciences, 36, 147–160.


De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K.
(
2018)
The
changing functions of competing forms. Attraction and
differentiation.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234.


Diessel, H.
(
2015)
Usage-based
construction
grammar. In
E. Dąbrowska &
D. Divjak (Eds.),
Handbook
of Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.


Gyselinck, E.
(
2018)
The
role of expressivity and productivity in reshaping the
constructional network. A corpus-based investigation into
synchronic and diachronic variation in the intensifying fake
reflexive resultative construction in 19th–21st Century
Dutch. PhD
dissertation. Universiteit Gent.

Hilpert, M.
(
2013)
Constructional
change in English : developments in allomorphy, word
formation, and
syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
(
2017)
Entrenchment
in Construction Grammar In
H.-J. Schmid (Ed.),
Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 57–74). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter..


Hoeksema, J.
(
2012)
Elative
compounds in Dutch: Properties and
developments. In
G. Oebel (Ed.),
Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und
Adverbien im Sprachvergleich [
Cross-linguistic Comparison of Intensified
Adjectives and
Adverbs] (pp. 97–142). Hamburg: Verlag dr. Kovač.

Hopper, P. J.
(
1991)
On
some principles of
grammaticization. In
E. C. Traugott &
B. Heine (Eds.),
Approaches
to Grammaticalization: Volume I. Theoretical and
methodological
issues (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.


Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S.
(
2003)
Well
Weird, Right Dodgy, Very Strange, Really Cool:
Layering and Recycling in English
Intensifiers.
Language in
Society, 32(2), 257–279.


Jackendoff, R.
(
2008)
Construction
After Construction and its Theoretical
Challenges.
Language, 84(1), 8–28.


Jackendoff, R.
(
2013)
Constructions
in the Parallel
Architecture. In
T. Hoffmann &
G. Trousdale (Eds.),
The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 70–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M.
(
2008)
Children’s
first language acquistion from a usage-based
perspective. In
P. Robinson &
N. C. Ellis (Eds.),
Handbook
of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Perek, F.
(
2015)
Argument
Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Experimental
and corpus-based
perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Perek, F.
(
2016)
Recent
change in the productivity and schematicity of the
way-construction: a distributional semantic
analysis.
Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic Theory, Published ahead of
print.

Schmid, H.-J.
(
2017)
A
Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and Its
Psychological
Foundations. In
H.-J. Schmid (Ed.),
Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize
and Adapt Linguistic
Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.


Stoffel, C.
(
1901)
Intensives
and down-toners: a study in English
adverbs. Heidelberg: C. Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.

Tagliamonte, S.
(
2008)
So
different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in
Toronto, Canada.
English
Language and
Linguistics, 12(2), 361–394.


ten Buuren, M., van de Groep, M., Collin, S., Klatter, J., & de Hoop, H.
to
appear).
Facking nice! Een
onderzoek naar de intensiteit van
intensiveerders.
Nederlandse
Taalkunde.
Traugott, E. C.
(
2007)
The
concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from
the perspective of
grammaticalization.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557.


Traugott, E. C.
(
2008a)
The
Grammaticalization of NP of NP
Constructions. In
A. Bergs &
G. Diewald (Eds.),
Constructions
and Language
Change (pp. 21–43). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Traugott, E. C.
(
2008b)
Grammaticalization,
constructions and the incremental development of language:
Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in
English. In
R. Eckardt,
G. Jäger, &
T. Veenstra (Eds.),
Variation,
Selection, Development: Probing the Evolutionary Model of
Language
Change (pp. 219–250). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(
2013)
Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Trousdale, G.
(
2008)
A
Constructional Approach to Lexicalization Processes in the
History of English: Evidence from Possessive
Constructions.
Word
Structure, 1(2), 156–177.


Van de Velde, F.
(
2014)
Degeneracy:
The maintenace of constructional
networks. In
R. Boogaart,
T. Colleman, &
G. Rutten (Eds.),
Extending
the Scope of Construction
Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

van Trijp, R., & Steels, L.
(
2012)
Multilevel
alignment maintains language
systematicity.
Advances in
Complex
Systems, 15(3), 1–30.

von Mengden, F., & Coussé, E.
(
2014)
The
role of change in usage-based conceptions of
language. In
E. Coussé &
F. von Mengden (Eds.),
Usage-based
approaches to language
change (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Zeldes, A.
(
2012)
Productivity
in Argument Selection From Morphology to
Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.


Zeschel, A.
(
2012)
Incipient
Productivity: a Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic
Creativity. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.


Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 march 2023. 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.