Cover not available
Part of
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 213–242

Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family?

Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English

The network of prepositional secondary predicate constructions has undergone massive changes throughout the history of English. While in Old English forms marked with to (e.g. crown someone as king) used to dominate, forms marked with as dominate in Present-Day English (e.g. crown someone as king). The present paper studies the changes in the network of such constructions marked with as, for, into, and to in the Middle English period by analysing changes in frequency and semantic similarity. A corpus study in the PPCME2 was conducted, based on a Distributional Semantic Model. The results indicate a sudden turning point in the early Middle English period whereby to-marked forms quickly lost their importance. In addition to providing insights into the (changing) nature of polysemic links and allostructions, the description of constructions copied from Anglo-Norman introduces a language contact component to the framework of Diachronic Construction Grammar.
Keywords: secondary predication, Middle English, modal expressions, distributional semantics, language contact
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Secondary predicate constructions in Present-Day English and in the history of English
    • 2.1Characterisation of secondary predicate constructions in Present-Day English
    • 2.2Diachronic developments of prepositional secondary predicate constructions in the history of English
  • 3.Allostructions, polysemy and homostructions in the network of secondary predicate constructions
  • 4.Empirical analysis: Methodology
  • 5.Empirical analysis: Results
    • 5.1Changes in frequency
    • 5.2The rise of French-based verbs
    • 5.3Development of semantic differences
  • 6.Changes in the network of prepositional secondary predicates constructions
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per
References (40)
References
Bosworth, J., Toller, T. N., Christ, S., & Tichý, O. (2010). Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Retrieved from [URL]
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, Special Volume 1, 28 pages.Google Scholar
Croft, W. A. (2003). Lexical rules vs. Constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from [URL]
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. Retrieved from [URL]
(2013). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20 countries, updated every day. Retrieved from [URL]
D’hoedt, F. (2017). Language change in constructional networks: The development of the English Secondary Predicate Construction (PhD thesis). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
D’hoedt, F., & Cuyckens, H. (2017). The development of the as-Secondary Predicate Construction: Constructionalization and internalization. Language Sciences, 59, 16–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinu, G., Pham, N. T., & Baroni, M. (2013). DISSECT – DIStributional SEmantics Composition Toolkit. In Proceedings of the System Demonstrations of ACL 2013 (51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell Jr, F. E., & Dupont, C. (2018). Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. Retrieved from [URL]
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (2012). The Transmission of Anglo-Norman: Language history and language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones & Esch (Eds.), Language Change (pp. 285–313). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (2000). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second Edition (PPCME2), release 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from [URL]
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Los, B. (2005). The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McSparran, F., Schaffner, P., Latta, J., Pagliere, A., Powell, C., & Stoeffler, M. (2001). Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from [URL]
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED Online. (2018). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [URL]
Percillier, M. (2016). Verb lemmatization and semantic verb classes in a Middle English corpus. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016) (pp. 209–214). Retrieved from [URL]
(2018). A Toolkit for lemmatising, analysing, and visualising Middle English Data. In A. U. Frank, C. Ivanovic, F. Mambrini, M. Passarotti, & C. Sporleder (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Corpus-Based Research in the Humanities CRH-2 (Vol. 1, pp. 153–160). Vienna. Retrieved from [URL]
Perek, F., & Hilpert, M. (2017). A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(4), 490–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Randall, B. (2010). Corpus Search (Version 2.003.00) [Computer Software]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from [URL]
R Core Team. (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. (2003). The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE). York: University of York. Retrieved from [URL]
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, C., & Stein, A. (2018). A comparison of multi-genre and single-genre corpora in the context of contact-induced change. In R. J. Whitt (Ed.), Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change (pp. 241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Contact-Induced Changes in the Argument Structure of Middle English Verbs on the Model of Old French. Journal of Language Contact, 12(1), 232–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotter, D. (2006a). Anglo-Norman Dictionary 2 Online edition. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Retrieved from [URL]
(2006b). Anglo-Norman Online Hub. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Retrieved from [URL]
Verkerk, A. (2009). A semantic map of secondary predication. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 26, 115–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. T. (2002). An historical syntax of the English language (4th ed.). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2018). Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics, 22(1), 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Trips, Carola & Peter A. Stokes
2023. From Original Sources to Linguistic Analysis: Tools and Datasets for the Investigation of Multilingualism in Medieval English. In Medieval English in a Multilingual Context [New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Middeke, Kirsten
2022. Sōþes ne wanda. The Avoidance is Separation Metaphor in West-Germanic Argument Structure. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70:3 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2022. Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Laporte, Samantha, Tove Larsson & Larissa Goulart
2021. Testing the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 230 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2020. Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical linguistics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2021. Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17:3 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2024. 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.