Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 205–221

Dutch causative constructions

Quantification of meaning and meaning of quantification

| F.R.S. - FNRS, Université catholique de Louvain
ORCID logo | University of Leuven
| University of Leuven

This chapter is a multivariate corpus-based study of two near-synonymous periphrastic causatives with doen and laten in Dutch. Using multiple logistic regression and classification trees, the study explores the conceptual differences between the constructions. The results support the existing definition of doen as the direct causation auxiliary, and interpretation of laten as the indirect causative (e.g. Verhagen and Kemmer 1997). However, the analyses also reveal more specific patterns: the most distinctive semantic pattern of doen is affective causation, whereas the contexts with the highest probability of laten refer to inducive causation. These differences remain valid when we control for geographic and thematic variation, as well as for the individual Effected Predicates treated as random effects in a mixed model.

Keywords: classification trees, logistic regression, mixed model, periphrastic causatives
Published online: 6 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.08lev
References
Baayen, R.H
(2008)  Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R.H
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bouma, G., van Noord, G., & Malouf, R
(2001) Alpino: Wide-coverage computational analysis of Dutch. In W. Dalemans, K. Sima’an, J. Veenstra, & J. Zavrel (Eds.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2000: Selected papers from the Eleventh CLIN meeting (pp. 45–59). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bybee, J
(2010)  Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language , 82(2), 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, E., & Storms, G
(2010) Detecting intra and inter categorical structure in semantic concepts using HICLAS. Acta Psychologica ,133 (3), 296–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G
(2009) Towards a multivariate model of grammar: The case of word order variation in Dutch clause final verb clusters. In A. Dufter, J. Fleischer, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Describing and modeling variation in grammar (pp. 225–254). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Degand, L
(2001)  Form and function of causation. A theoretical and empirical investigation of causal constructions in Dutch . Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(1999) Idealist and empiricist tendencies in cognitive semantics. In T. Janssen, & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope and methodology (pp. 163–194). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics (pp. 74–97). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K
(2010)  Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006)  Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language . 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th
(2003)  Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement . New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D
(2007) A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittleberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell, F.E
(2001)  Regression modelling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis . Heidelberg & New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Heylen, K
(2005) A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 241–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S
(2000)  Applied logistic regression . New York: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A
(2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 15(3), 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Verhagen, A
(1994) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics , 5(2), 115–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987)  Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, N
(2011)  Doe wat je niet laten kan: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions [Do what you cannot let: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions] . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D
(2009) Collostructional analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Paper presented at the Third International AFLiCo Conference, 28 May, Paris.
Loewenthal, J
(2003) Meaning and use of causeeless causative constructions with laten in Dutch. In A. Verhagen, & J. van de Weijer (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch (pp. 97–130). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review , 85(3), 207–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menard, S
(2001)  Applied logistic regression analysis . Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2010)  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for statistical computing . Vienna, Austria. [URL].Google Scholar
Rosch, E
(1975) Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 104(3), 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B
(1975) Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology , 7(4), 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D
(2009) Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch doen and laten . In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, N
(2005)  Causality marking across levels of language structure . Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., Akhtar, N., Dodson, K., & Rekau, L
(1997) Differential productivity in young children’s use of nouns and verbs. Journal of Child Language , 24(2), 373–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D
(2005) Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1(2), 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A., & Kemmer, S
(1997) Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics , 27(1), 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Kokorniak, Iwona & Alicja Jajko-Siwek
2018. Expressing i think that in Polish. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:1 ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang
2022. Profiling the Chinese causative construction withrang(讓),shi(使) andling(令) using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Na & Fuyin Thomas Li
2023. Event integration as a driving force of language change: evidence from Chinese 使-shǐ-make. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Bibliographie. In Pourquoi le langage ?, ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 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.