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. 317–352

Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar

Construction Grammar conceptualizes language as a hierarchically organized network of constructions, defined as conventional pairings of form and meaning. Importantly, constructions are interlinked: vertical links connect lower-level constructions with their higher-level parents; horizontal links connect sister constructions on the same level. While the importance of vertical connections is well-established, horizontal connections have received only little attention in the theoretical literature so far. The power of horizontal connections stems from their ability to express syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations. By means of two classic case studies, we will show how shifts in similarity relations, that derive from shared horizontal connections down to the utterance level, enable changes in paradigmatic affiliations to constructions higher-up in the network. Our first case study relates the emergence of a new construction, [be going to INF], to the co-occurrence of its three constituent constructions in specific contexts that were favourable to a holistic interpretation. The second case study describes how a shared set of strong syntagmatic connections strengthened the paradigmatic ties between periphrastic do and the modal auxiliaries, ultimately causing periphrastic do to break free from its lexical origins and fully adopt its new role as auxiliary. Generally, while constructional nodes cannot be reduced to horizontal connections between forms and/or meanings, knowing the nature of such connections is essential to a full understanding of both the emergence of new constructions as well as the consolidation of existing ones.
Keywords: constructional network, vertical links, horizontal links, paradigmatic relations, emergence of constructions, English, be going to, modal auxiliaries, verbs, Periphrastic do, Artificial Neural Networks
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Connections: Horizontal vs. vertical, syntagmatic vs. paradigmatic
  • 3.Connections in grammatical constructionalization: [be going to INF]
    • 3.1Timing of the change in the literature
    • 3.2Empirical study: Operationalization & methodology
    • 3.3Semantic shifts in syntagmatic patterns
      • 3.3.1Topicalization
      • 3.3.2Passives
    • 3.4Interpretation of results: The birth of a construction
  • 4.Connections in paradigm crystallization: do and the modals
    • 4.1Analogical attraction
    • 4.2Operationalizing paradigm crystallization
      • 4.2.1Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs)
      • 4.2.2Model design and training
    • 4.3All-do control group
    • 4.4Shifting patterns of similarity
    • 4.5Interpretation, limitations and future work
  • 5.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.09bud
References (69)
References
Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, A. & Rayson, P. (2008). VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 22 May 2008.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. & Elman, J. L. (1993). Connectionism and the study of change. In M. H. Johnson, Y. Munakata & R. O. Gilmore (Eds.), Brain development and Cognition: A reader (pp. 623–642). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, Y., Larseen-Freeman, D. & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Budts, S. & Petré, P. (2016). Reading the intentions of be going to. On the subjectification of future markers. Folia Linguistica Historica, 37, 11–32.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2015). Constructionalization and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danchev, A. & M. Kytö. (1994). The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in early modern English (pp. 59–77). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mulder, W., Bethard, S. & Moens, M. (2015). A survey on the application of recurrent neural networks to statistical language modelling. Computer Speech and Language, 30(1), 611–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., Diller, H. J. & Tyrkkö, J. (2011). The corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. [URL]
Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In D. Divjak & E. Dabrowska (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions, Special Volume 1: Constructions all over – case studies and theoretical implications. [URL]
Disney, S. (2009). The grammaticalization of ‘be going to’. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 63–82.Google Scholar
Dubossarsky, H., Grossman, E. & Weinshall, D. (2017). Outta control: Laws of semantic change and inherent biases in word representation models. Proceedings of conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP). Copenhagen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary do. The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2001). Connectionism and language acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings (pp. 295–307). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Filppula, M., Klemola, J. & Paulasto, H. (2008). English and Celtic in contact. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. (2007). Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. (1998). On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics, 2, 283–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & A. Stefanowitsch. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göb, R., McCollin, C. & Ramalhoto, M. F. (2007). Ordinal Methodology in the Analysis of Likert Scales. Quality & Quantity 41, 601–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. & Perek, F. (2015). Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistics Vanguard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may. Constructions and Frames, 8(1), 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1976). Some theoretical issues in the description of the English Verb. Lingua, 40, 331–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1997). The rise of auxiliary do: Verb-non-raising or category-strengthening? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95(1), 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. & Martin, J.H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Second edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Chiu, Y., Hanaki, K., Hegde, D. & Petrov, S. (2014). Temporal analysis of language through neural language models. Proceedings of the ACL 2014 workshop on language technologies and computational social science, 61–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language variation and change, 1, 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar (Vol. 42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Loyer, P. (1605). Discours, et Histoires des Spectres, Visions et Apparitions des Esprits, Anges, Démons et Ames, se montrant visibles aux hommes : Aussi est traicté des extases et ravissemens, de l’essence, nature et origine des Ames, et de leur estat après le deceds de leurs corps: Plus des Magiciens et Sorciers etc. Paris: Buon.Google Scholar
Levy, O. & Goldberg, Y. (2014). Neural Word Embedding as Implicit Matrix Factorization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 27, 2177–2185.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23: Principles of diachronic syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (1992). Can connectionist models discover the structure of natural language? In R. Morelli, W. M. Brown, D. Anselmi, K. Haberlandt & D. Lloyd (Eds.), Minds, Brains & Computers (pp. 168–189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
(2015). Capturing gradience, continuous change, and quasi-regularity in sound, word, phrase and meaning. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 53–81). Blackwell: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McLeod, P., Plunkett, K. & Rolls, E. (1998). Introduction to connectionist modelling of cognitive processes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. (2013b). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Proceedings of workshop at ICLR.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S. & Dean, J. (2013a). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (NIPS 2013), 3111–3119.Google Scholar
Norde, M. & Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change: a network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–90). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). The real-time dynamics of individual and community in grammaticalization. Language(4). 867–901. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, P. (2013). EEBOCorp, version 1.0. Leuven: University of Leuven Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
(2019). How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In B. Busse & R. Möhlig-Falke (Eds.), Patterns in language and linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept (Topics in English 104), 157–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehurek, R. & Sojka, P. (2010). Software framework for topic modelling with large corpora. Proceedings of the LREC 2010 workshop on new challenges for NLP frameworks.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2015). The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 107–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tahmasebi, N., Borin, L. & Jatowt, A. (2018). Survey of computational approaches to diachronic conceptual change detection. Preprint at arXiv.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2015). The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012a). The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths (pp. 221–255). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b). On the persistence of ambiguous linguistics context over time: implications for corpus research on micro-changes. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description (pp. 231–246). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Toward a coherent account of grammatical constructionalization. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 51–80). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 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. 141–179). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2018). Iterated exaptation. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words (pp. 519–544). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Genee, I. (2002). English do: on the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics, 6(2), 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanni, L., Ducoffe, M., Precioso, F., Longrée, D. et al. (2018). Text Deconvolution Salience (TDS) : a deep tool box for linguistic analysis. 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. July 2018. Melbourne.Google Scholar
Warner, A. R. (1993). English auxiliaries. Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Zuo, Shan & Fuyin Li
2024. Review of Traugott (2022): Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Language and Linguistics. 語言暨語言學 DOI logo
DESAGULIER, GUILLAUME & PHILIPPE MONNERET
2023. Cognitive Linguistics and a Usage‐Based Approach to the Study of Semantics and Pragmatics. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Nijs, Julie & Freek Van de Velde
2023. Chapter 8. Resemanticising ‘free’ variation. In Free Variation in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 234], ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Ulrike
2023.  I couldn’t help but wonder: do modals and negation attract?. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Budts, Sara
2022. A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Desagulier, Guillaume
2022. Changesin the midst ofa construction network: a diachronic construction grammar approach to complex prepositions denoting internal location. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2020. Chapter 2. Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2022. English modal enclitic constructions: a diachronic, usage-based study of’dand’ll. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Diewald, Gabriele
2020. Paradigms lost – paradigms regained. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 278 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
[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.