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.
(2008) Analysing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D.
(2006) A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355.
Ceulemans, E., & Storms, G.
(2010) Detecting intra and inter categorical structure in semantic concepts using HICLAS. Acta Psychologica,133 (3), 296–304.
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.
(2001) Form and function of causation. A theoretical and empirical investigation of causal constructions in Dutch. Leuven: Peeters.
(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.
(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.
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K.
(2010) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, St. Th
(2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
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.
(2001) Regression modelling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. Heidelberg & New York: Springer.
(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.
Hosmer, D.W. & Lemeshow, S.
(2000) Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
(2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674.
Kemmer, S., & Verhagen, A.
(1994) The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 115–156.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar:Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
(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.
Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D.
(2009) Collostructional analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Paper presented at the Third International AFLiCo Conference, 28 May, Paris.
(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.
Medin, D.L., & Schaffer, M.M.
(1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207–238.
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.
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.
[no author supplied]
2020. Bibliographie. In Pourquoi le langage ?, ► pp. 253 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 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.