Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:4 (2017) ► pp.490–520

A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions

| University of Birmingham
| Université de Neuchâtel
This paper describes a method to automatically identify stages of language change in diachronic corpus data, combining variability-based neighbour clustering, which offers objective and reproducible criteria for periodization, and distributional semantics as a representation of lexical meaning. This method partitions the history of a grammatical construction according to qualitative stages of productivity corresponding to different semantic sets of lexical items attested in it. Two case studies are presented. The first case study on the hell-construction (“Verb the hell out of NP”) shows that the semantic development of a construction does not always match that of its quantitative aspects, like token or type frequency. The second case study on the way-construction compares the results of the present method with those of collostructional analysis. It is shown that the former measures semantic changes and their chronology with greater precision. In sum, this method offers a promising approach to exploring semantic variation in the lexical fillers of constructions and to modelling constructional change.
Keywords: constructions, diachrony, distributional semantics, periodization, productivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Stages of language change
  • 2.Periodization and variability-based neighbour clustering
  • 3.A distributional semantic approach to VNC
  • 4.Case studies
    • 4.1The hell-construction
    • 4.2The way-construction
    • 4.3Comparison with collostructional analysis
  • 5.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
References (46)
References
Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 21 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bullinaria, J., & Levy, J. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word cooccurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 231, 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2012). Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewey, T. K. (2006). The origins and development of Germanic V2: Evidence from alliterative verse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dinu, G., Pham, N. T., & Baroni, M. (2013). DISSECT: DIStributional SEmantics Composition Toolkit. In Proceedings of the System Demonstrations of ACL 2013 (51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp. 31–36). East Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Erk, K. (2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1). 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stoll, S. (2009). Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 217–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012a). Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012b). Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (1996). History, Language Change and Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J. (2008). Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 347–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2012). Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660–665). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Noël, D. (2008). The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noël, D., & Colleman, T. (2010). Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 157–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onysko, A., & Calude, A. (2014). Comparing the usage of Maori loans in spoken and written New Zealand English: A case study of Maori, Pakeha, and Kiwi . In E. Zenner & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations (pp. 143–169). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2016a). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Ahead-of-print. Retrieved from
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
 (last accessed August 2017). DOI logo
Rosemeyer, M. (2014). Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turney, P., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37(1), 141–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A. (2012). Productivity in Argument Selection. From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
2024. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60:3 ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2024. Rah-rah! Investigating the variation in phonosemantic motivation in a set of iconic nouns expressing the concept <. Lexis :23 DOI logo
GRIES, STEFAN T.
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 561 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan T.
2023. Collostructional Methods. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 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
Trips, Carola & Peter A. Stokes
2023. From Original Sources to Linguistic Analysis: Tools and Datasets for the Investigation of Multilingualism in Medieval English. In Medieval English in a Multilingual Context [New Approaches to English Historical Linguistics, ], ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Shen, Tian & R. Harald Baayen
2022. Adjective–noun compounds in Mandarin: a study on productivity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:3 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2022. Review of Sommerer & Smirnova (2020): Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne
2021. “The next Morning I got a Warrant for the Man and his Wife, but he was fled”. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 318 ff. DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin & Hendrik De Smet
2020. Diachronic Corpora. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Percillier, Michael
2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family?. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo
Percillier, Michael
2020. A Variationist Approach to the Spread of Emergent Features in Middle English. Recherches anglaises et nord-américaines :53 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Percillier, Michael
2022. Chapter 2. Adapting the Dynamic Model to historical linguistics. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 359], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Sundquist, John D.
2020. Productivity, richness, and diversity of light verb constructions in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
SUNDQUIST, JOHN D.
2022. An exemplar-based approach to composite predicates in the history of American English. English Language and Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Wagner, Susanne
2019. Whyvery goodin India might bepretty goodin North America. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:4 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. “The next Morning I got a Warrant for the Man and his Wife, but he was fled”. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 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.