Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 26:3 (2021) ► pp.396–428

Productivity of French and Dutch (semi-)copular constructions and the adverse impact of high token frequency

ORCID logo | Universiteit Gent | Vrije Universiteit Brussel

This paper examines the productivity of the subject complement slot in a set of French and Dutch (semi-)copular micro-constructions. The presumed counterpart of productivity, conventionalization in the form of high token frequency, will also be taken into account in the analysis of the productivity complex. On the one hand, it will be shown that prototypical copulas generally have a higher productivity than semi-copulas, although there are some semi-copulas that can rival the productivity of prototypical copulas. On the other hand, it will be demonstrated that high token frequency is in general detrimental to productivity, on the level of the entire subject complement slot and on the level of the different semantic classes. However, the shape of the frequency distribution also seems to play a role: multiple highly frequent types are in my data more detrimental to productivity than one extremely frequent type, although the semantic connectedness of the types in the distribution might also be an explanatory factor.

Keywords: copular construction, semi-copula, prototypicality, productivity, conventionalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Productivity, conventionalization and prototypicality
  • 2.Prototypical copulas and semi-copulas
  • 3.Methodology: Composition of the sample
  • 4.Overview of different measures of productivity and conventionalization
  • 5.Correlation of (anti-)productivity measures by means of a PCA
    • 5.1PCA on the entire set of copular verbs: Prototypical copulas vs. semi-copulas and productivity vs. anti-productivity
    • 5.2PCA on the subset of semi-copulas: The role of the type of frequency summit on overall productivity
    • 5.3Contrastive analysis
  • 6.Productivity measured through the prism of the semantic classes
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
References
Baayen, H.
(1993) On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling, M. Kytö, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics (pp. 899–919). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baroni, M., & Evert, S.
(2014) The zipfR Package for Lexical Statistics: A Tutorial Introduction. [URL]
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
(2012) Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal About the Mind. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 129–152). American Psychological Association. 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
Colleman, T.
(2009) Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31(5), 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, V.
(2011, July). How large is the core of language? [Paper presentation]. Sixth International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK. [URL]
Declerck, R.
(1988) Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, G.
(2016) A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 173–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2020) What predicts productivity? Theory meets individuals. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 251–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M.
(2016) Frequency effects in grammar. In M. Aronoff (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L.
(2015) Frequency and entrenchment. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 53–75). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D.
(2006) Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2017) Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 153–174). American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C.
(2015) Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K.
(1992) Non-Verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, F. R.
(1979) The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. Garland.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J.
(2011) Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example using R. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, I. T.
(2002) Principal Component Analysis. Springer.Google Scholar
Kassambara, A.
(2017) Practical Guide to Principal Component Methods in R. CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
(2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B., & Melis, L.
(2005) Les copules ressemblent-elles aux auxiliaires? [Do copulas resemble auxiliaries?] In H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & N. Le Querler (Eds.), Les Périphrases Verbales [Verbal Periphrases] (pp. 145–170). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P.
(2008) Les emplois attributifs de faire [Copular uses of faire ]. Studia Neophilologica, 80(1), 43–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) La prédication ‘attributive’: Portée, structuration interne et statut théorique [‘Copular’ predication: Range, internal structuration and theoretical status]. In A. H. Ibrahim (Ed.), Prédicats, Prédication et Structures Prédicatives [Predicates, Predication and Predicational Structures] (pp. 178–202). CRL.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Tobback, E.
(2010) Les verbes attributifs: Inventaire(s) et statut(s) [Copular Verbs: Inventor(-y/-ies) and Status(es)]. Langages, 179–180(3), 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Van Wettere, N.
(2018)  Virer et tourner attributifs: De l’analyse quantitative des cooccurrences aux contrastes sémantiques [Copular virer and tourner: From a quantitative cooccurrence analysis to semantic contrasts]. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63(3), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F.
(2008) FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legallois, D., & Gréa, P.
(2007) L’objectif de cet article est de … : Construction spécificationnelle et grammaire phraséologique [The objective of this article is to …: Specificational construction and phraseological grammar]. Cahiers de Praxématique, 461, 161–186.Google Scholar
Los, B., Blom, C., Booij, G., Elenbaas, M., & Van Kemenade, A.
(2012) Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Y., & Pavón Lucero, M. V.
(2007) Los Verbos Pseudo-copulativos del Español [Pseudo-Copular Verbs in Spanish]. Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Moro, A.
(1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riegel, M.
(2005) Forme et interprétation des phrases copulatives à deux groupes nominaux définis [Form and interpretation of copular phrases with two definite nominal groups]. In C. Molinier & I. Choi-Jonin (Eds.), Questions de Classification en Linguistique: Méthodes et Descriptions: Mélanges Offertes au Professeur Christian Molinier [Classification Questions in Linguistics: Methods and Descriptions: Collection of Essays Offered to Professor Christian Molinier] (pp. 299–317). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2015) A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stassen, L.
(1997) Intransitive Predication. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S.
(2017) The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 101–127). American Psychological Association. 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 University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tweedie, F. J., & Baayen, R. H.
(1998) How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 321, 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, F.
(2015) Predicative Constructions: A Monostratal Montagovian Treatment. CSLI.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, F., Augustinus, L., Schuurman, I., & Vandeghinste, V.
(2014) Het verrassende resultaat van een copulativiteitspeiling [The surprising result of a copularity investigation]. In F. Van de Velde, H. Smessaert, F. Van Eynde, & S. Verbrugge (Eds.), Patroon en Argument: een Dubbelfeestbundel bij het Emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst [Pattern and Argument: A Double Festschrift for Emeritus Professors William Van Belle and Joop van der Horst] (pp. 47–62). Universitaire Pers Leuven. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Wettere, N.
(2018) Copularité et Productivité: Une Analyse Contrastive des Verbes Attributifs Issus de Verbes de Mouvement en Français et en Néerlandais [Copularity and Productivity: A Contrastive Analysis of Copular Verbs Originating from Motion Verbs in French and Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University]. Academic Bibliography @ Ghent University. [URL]
Van Wettere, N., & Lauwers, P.
(2017) La micro-constructionnalisation en tandem: La copularisation de tourner et virer [Micro-constructionalization in tandem: The copularization of tourner and virer ]. Langue française, 194(2), 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(2005) Constructiegrammatica en usage based taalkunde [Construction grammar and usage-based linguistics]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 101, 197–222.Google Scholar
Wulff, S.
(2008) Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach. Continuum.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2012) Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, A.
(2012) Incipient Productivity: A Construction-based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar