Article published in:
Functions of Language
Vol. 24:3 (2017) ► pp. 319–347

Measuring iconicity

A quantitative study of lexical and analytic causatives in British English

| Leipzig University
The idea of isomorphism of form and meaning has played an important role in functionalist theories of syntax and morphology. However, there have been few studies that test this hypothesis empirically on quantitative data. This study aims to fill this gap by testing the predictions made by iconicity theory with the help of statistical hypothesis-testing techniques. The paper focuses on a subtype of isomorphism, namely iconicity of cohesion. The analyses are based on a sample of lexical and analytic causatives from the British National Corpus. The study employs three different operationalisations of the degree of semantic cohesion of the causing and caused events, which are based on English and cross-linguistic data. The form-function correlation is interpreted from the point of view of three possible models of relationships between form, function and/or frequency.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity theory and causatives
  • 3.Analytic and lexical causatives in the British National Corpus: Description of the comparative concepts and the sample
    • 3.1Definition of analytic and lexical causatives
    • 3.2The sample
  • 4.Lexical vs. analytical causatives: Do semantic classes of causative events matter?
  • 5.Corpus-driven variable: Causal/non-causal alternation in English
  • 6.Cross-linguistic evidence: Inchoative-causative alternation
  • 7.Discussion: The form-meaning correlation and how to explain it
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpus
  • References
Published online: 09 February 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15013.lev
References

Corpus

The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available online at http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2000 Transitivity in Tariana. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), 145–172.Google Scholar
Amberber, Menigstu
2000 Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), 312–332.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: The syntax and pragmatics interface, 51–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985 Diagrammatic iconicity in stem – inflection relations. In John Haiman (ed.), 11–47.Google Scholar
2010 Markedness: Iconicity, economy and frequency. In J. Jung Song (ed.), Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 131–147. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra Thomspon
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, 378–388. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981 Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky
(eds.) 1993 Causatives and transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2007 Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 251. 108–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 191. 457–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
(eds.) 2000 Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
1985 Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), 343–365.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1995 The distinction between “to” and bare infinitival complements in Late Middle English. Diachronica XII(1). 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry
1970 Three reasons for not deriving “kill” from “cause to die.” Linguistic Inquiry 1(4). 429–438.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2010 Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1980 The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3). 333–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. II1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
1983 Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1985 Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1993 More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), 87–120.Google Scholar
2005 Universals of causative verb formation. Paper presented at LSA Institute, MIT, LSA.206, 2 August 2005.
2008a Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 185–214. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyaci
2014 Coding causal – noncausal verb alternations: A form – frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 501. 587–625. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne
1982 How to cause in Mixtec. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Berkley Linguistics Society, 354–363.Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B.
2004 The iconicity of infinitival complementation in Present-day English causatives. In Constantino Maeder, Olga Fischer, & William J. Herlofsky (eds.), Outside-in – inside-out: Iconicity in language and literature, 287–306. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987 The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi
1994 On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Arie Verhagen
1994 The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 51. 115–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
1993 The “second causative”: A typological sketch. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), 121–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randi J.
2000 Valency-changing derivations in Dulong/Rawang. In R. M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), 282–311.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappoport Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia
2015a How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015b European analytic causatives as a comparative concept: Evidence from a parallel corpus of film subtitles. Folia Linguistica 49(2). 487–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 507–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Andrew Wilson
2001 Corpus Linguistics. An Introduction. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007 Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
1969 Nekotoryje verojatnostnyje universalii v glagol’nom slovoobrazonanii [Some probabilistic universals in verbal derivation]. In I. F. Vardul’ (ed.), Jazykovyje universalii i lingvističeskaja tipologija, 106–114. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1976 Kausativkonstruktionen. Tübingen: TBL.Google Scholar
Patterson, Betty S. J.
1974 A study of Korean causatives. Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 6(4). 1–52.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tilly & Edward Gibson
2011 Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. PNAS 108(9). 3526–3529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2014 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2003 Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379–411. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2005 New York, Dayton (Ohio), and the Raw Frequency Fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1–2. 295–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steger, Maria & Edgar W. Schneider
2012 Complexity as a function of iconicity: The case of complement clause constructions in New Englishes. In Bernd Kortmann & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact, 156–191. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John
2012 The Mental Corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie & Suzanne Kemmer
1997 Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 241. 61–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George K.
1949 Human behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Uljas, Sami
2021. Iconicity and Semantic-Structural Mapping in Earlier Egyptian Complementation. Lingua Aegyptia - Journal of Egyptian Language Studies :29 ► pp. 215 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 april 2022. 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.