Article In:
Language and Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Measure schematicity through information content

A quantitative approach to grammaticalization

 | Soochow University
 | Soochow University
Apropos of the level of specificity, schematicity is the key indicator of grammaticalization in linguistics; compared to lexical items, the information provided by grammar patterns tends to be more abstract. With recourse to the notion of the quantifiable information content in information theory, the schematicity of a schema can be quantified by comparing the information content provided by the elements occurring in the open slots to that provided by the schema itself. A formula is thereby proposed to measure schematicity. This schematicity measure is able to illustrate the gradience and gradualness of grammaticalization in its applications in synchronic English data and diachronic Chinese data. Compared to previous measures of grammaticalization, there is a notable improvement in reliability and applicability.
Keywords: schematicity, information content, grammaticalization, quantitative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Quantification of schematicity
    • 2.1Schematicity in information theory
    • 2.2Measurement of morphological grammaticalization
  • 3.Synchronic application of the schematicity measure
  • 4.Diachronic application of the schematicity measure
    • 4.1The grammaticalization of zài 在
    • 4.2The grammaticalization of zhe 着
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Discussions
    • 5.1Comparison with previous measures
    • 5.2Implications and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • List of abbreviations
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (46)
References
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco & Basciano, Bianca. 2012. On the productivity of the Chinese suffixes −兒 −r, −化 −huà and −頭 −tou . Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 10(2). 89–117.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1989. A corpus-based study of morphological productivity: Statistical analysis and psychological interpretation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (Doctoral dissertation.)
. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 21, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29(5). 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassetti, Benedetta. 2005. Effects of writing systems on second language awareness: Word awareness in English learners of Chinese as a foreign language. In Cook, Vivian & Bassetti, Benedatta (eds.), Second language writing systems, 335–356. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Jonathan R. & Hale, John T. 2019. Hierarchical structure guides rapid linguistic predictions during naturalistic listening. PLOS One 14(1). 1–17. (Article e0207741.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2008. Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 216–236. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Correia Saavedra, David. 2021. Measurements of grammaticalization: Developing a quantitative index for the study of grammatical change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, Evie & Andersson, Peter & Olofsson, Joel. 2018. Grammaticalization meets construction grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In Coussé, Evie & Andersson, Peter & Olofsson, Joel (eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar, 3–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John. 1984. The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ding, Nai & Melloni, Lucia & Zhang, Hang & Tian, Xing & Poeppel, David. 2016. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience 19(1). 158–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús. 2013. Morphological productivity measurement: Exploring qualitative versus quantitative approaches. English Studies 94(4). 422–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henderson, John M. & Choi, Wonil & Lowder, Matthew W. & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2016. Language structure in the brain: A fixation-related fMRI study of syntactic surprisal in reading. NeuroImage 1321. 293–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoosain, Rumjahn. 1992. Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. In Chen, Hsuan-Chih & Tzeng, Ovid J. L. (eds.), Language processing in Chinese, 111–130. Amsterdam: North-Holland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hung, Yueh-Nu. 2012. How a morphosyllabic writing system works in Chinese. In Goodman, Ken & Wang, Shaomei & Iventosch, Mieko Shimizu & Goodman, Yetta (eds.), Reading in Asian languages: Making sense of written texts in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, 16–31. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hüning, Matthias & Booij, Geert. 2014. From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization”. Folia Linguistica 48(2). 579–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2). 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Ping-Ping & Li, Wei-Jun Li & Lin, Nan & Li, Xing-Shan. 2013. Do Chinese readers follow the national standard rules for word segmentation during reading? PLOS One 8(2). 1–13. (Article e55440.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke & Evert, Stefan & Heid, Ulrich. 2000. On measuring morphological productivity. In Schukat-Talamazzini, Ernst G. & Zühlke, Werner (eds.), KONVENS-2000 sprachkommunikation, 57–61. Berlin: VDE-Verlag.Google Scholar
MacKay, David J. C. 2003. Information theory, inference, and learning algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrea E. & Doumas, Leonidas A. A. 2017. A mechanism for the cortical computation of hierarchical linguistic structure. PLOS Biology 15(3). 1–23. (Article e2000663.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Kevin F. 2002. Children’s early understanding of writing and language: The impact of characters and alphabetic orthographies. In Li, Wenling & Gaffney, Janet S. & Packard, Jerome L. (eds.), Chinese children’s reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues, 17–29. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Packard, Jerome L. 1998. Introduction. In Packard, Jerome L. (ed.), New approaches to Chinese word formation: Morphology, phonology and the lexicon in Modern and Ancient Chinese, 1–34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 65–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saalbach, Henrik & Stern, Elsbeth. 2004. Difference between Chinese morphosyllabic and German alphabetic readers in the Stroop interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11(4). 709–715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948a. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(3). 379–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1948b. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27(4). 623–656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard W. & Shih, Chilin & Gale, William & Chang, Nancy. 1996. A stochastic finite-state word-segmentation algorithm for Chinese. Computational Linguistics 22(3). 377–404.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Axmaker, Shelley & Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 389–405. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect? In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Eckardt, Regine & Jäger, Gerhard & Veenstra, Tonjes (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 82–116. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar