Chapter published in:
Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 243–274

Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links

To-contraction in American English

The guiding question of this paper is how (horizontal) connections are established when new items enter the network of constructions. It presents a quantitative, corpus-based study of the development of to-contraction (e.g. want to > wanna) in American English since the 19th century. From a plethora of earlier forms, gonna, wanna and gotta emerge, first as representations of phonetic reduction, but in time claiming their place as newly emerged, separate nodes in the constructional network. As their frequency increases, their usage patterns (relative to the full form) become increasingly similar. I propose that this marks the emergence of a horizontal link, which can be described as an emerging “metaconstruction”. The study discusses the status of these forms as either phonetic variants, potential allostructions, or independent form–meaning pairings, and provides first-hand evidence for emergent connections via mechanisms of analogy in language. Moreover, it makes an argument that (changing) usage patterns reflect (changing) constructional links and degrees of entrenchment.

Keywords: modal expressions, horizontal links, analogy, metaconstruction, contraction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Horizontal links and the emergence of schemata
  • 2. To-infinitives and contractions
  • 3.Corpus study 1: The history of non-conventional to-contraction
  • 4.Corpus study 2: Determinants of variation of contracted and full forms in the 20th century
    • 4.1Determinants of variation
      • 4.1.1Variables measuring the degree of entrenchment
        • Sentence type
        • Ellipsis
        • Sentence length
      • 4.1.2Variables measuring the degree of conventionalization
        • Register: Latin-based collocate
        • Genre: Movie vs Drama
      • 4.1.3Variables relating to both entrenchment and conventionalization
        • Attraction
        • Linguistic context: Subject
    • 4.2Modeling the data
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Contractions in the constructional network and the emergence of horizontal links
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.07lor
References
Bell, A., Jurafsky, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D.
(2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J.
(2009) Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2004) You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–491). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1980) WANNA and the gradience of auxiliaries. In G. Brettschneider, & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (pp. 292–299). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Broadbent, J. M., & Sifaki, E.
(2013)  To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 513–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all over: case studies and theoretical implications. Constructions, n.pag. special volume 1.
Croft, W.
(2005) Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M.
(2010) Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daugs, R.
Forthcoming). Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. To appear in I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle, & M. Hilpert Eds. Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar Amsterdam John Benjamins
Davies, M.
(2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990–2017. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
(2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coha/
De Smet, H., & Fischer, O.
(2017) The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 240–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 296–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egan, T.
(2008a) Emotion verbs with to-infinitive complements: From specific to general predication. In M. Gotti, M. Dossena, & R. Dury (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2006, Volume 1: Syntax and morphology (pp. 223–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O.
(2010) An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues (pp. 181–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freudinger, M.
(2017)  Shoulda, coulda, coulda – non-canonical forms on the move? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 65(3), 319–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D.
(2003) Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
(2015) Some current quantitative problems in Corpus Linguistics and a sketch of some solutions. Language and Linguistics, 16(1), 93–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Hilpert, M.
(2008) The identification of stages in diachronic data: variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell Jr., F. E.
(2017) rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1-1. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=rms
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2007) Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, B.
(2004) A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 23(2), 85–113.Google Scholar
Kaatari, H.
(2016) Variation across two dimensions: Testing the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density Principle on adjectival data. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 533–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, E.
(2018) A Radical Construction Grammar approach to construction split in the diachrony of the spatial particles of Ancient Greek. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 277–311). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G.
(2000) Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(2004) Quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 1, 2nd edition (pp. 6–21). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(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
Larreya, P.
(2009) Towards a typology of modality in Language. In R. Salkie, P. Bussutil, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (pp. 9–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leino, J., & Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Constructions and variability. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2016) When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D.
(2013) Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies / Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D., & Tizón-Couto, D.
Forthcoming). It’s not just frequency, it’s not just modality: production and perception of English semi-modals. To appear in P. Hohaus, & R. Schulze Eds. Modal co-text, modal context – re-assessing modal expression in the light of converging evidence Amsterdam John Benjamins
Mair, C.
(2014) Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxiliary (have) got (to) in British and American English. In M. Hundt (Ed.), Late Modern English syntax (pp. 56–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C., & Leech, G.
(2006) Current changes in English syntax. In B. Aarts, & A. S. McMahon (Eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 318–342). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B.
(2009) More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2014) From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll . In M. Hundt (Ed.), Late Modern English syntax (pp. 77–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(2001) Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F.
(2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 601–635.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Malvar, E.
(2007) Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: The expression of future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 19, 121–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K.
(1997) The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language, 73, 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.2.Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www​.R​-project​.org
Rohdenburg, G.
(1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Testing two processing principles with respect to the extraction of elements out of complement clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 463–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, M.
(2016) Modeling frequency effects in language change. In S. Pfänder, & H. Behrens (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 175–208). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudnicka, K.
(2018) Variation of sentence length across time and genre. In R. J. Whitt (Ed.), Diachronic corpora, genre, and language change (pp. 220–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D’Arcy, A.
(2007) The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide, 28(1), 47–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A.
(2009) The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2007) The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F.
(2014) Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Daugs, Robert
2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff. Crossref logo
Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020.  In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. Crossref logo
Papišta, Žolt
2022. Two Ways to Blend: The Hidden Complexities of Simplex Networks. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
TIZÓN-COUTO, DAVID
2022. A multivariate account of particle alternation after bare-form try in native varieties of English. English Language and Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 645 ff. Crossref logo
Tizón-Couto, David & David Lorenz
2021. Variables are valuable: making a case for deductive modeling. Linguistics 59:5 ► pp. 1279 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 january 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.