Cover not available

Article published In: The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research:
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 371–382

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical linguistics

 | University of Zurich
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00060.zeh
Abstract
This squib discusses empirical challenges incurred by assuming cognitive reality as a defining feature of constructions and the constructional network, as done in most usage-based, cognitive construction grammar approaches. Specifically, it zooms in on the methodological challenges in identifying cognitively plausible constructions in historical data, in particular when taking a highly exploratory, bottom-up approach with very little pre-selection or pre-analysis. I illustrate this issue with the example of a current project on PPs in the history of English, and the various functions these have in combination with verbs (from prototypical adjuncts to complements). I argue that the constraints of historical data make it necessary to find different, new ways to determine which abstractions and distinctions are likely to have been represented in minds of historical language users, and to furthermore identify changes in constructional networks over time.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cognitive reality of constructions: Theory and method
    • 2.1Constructions and networks as cognitively real
    • 2.2Challenges and possible approaches to identifying constructions (and networks)
  • 3.Cognitive reality of constructions as a challenge for exploratory diachronic investigations: PPs in the history of English
    • 3.1PEAS: English prepositional phrases and their history
    • 3.2Challenges and approaches to identifying PP-constructions in the history of English
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (39)
References
Bergen, Benjamin, and Nancy Chang. 2013. “Embodied Construction Grammar.” In The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2021. “Complements and Adjuncts.” In The Handbook of English Linguistics, ed. by Bas Aarts, April McMahon, and Lars Hinrichs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data Do and Do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budts, Sara, and Peter Petré. 2020. “Putting Connections Centre Stage in Diachronic Construction Grammar.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 318–351. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English. A Corpus-Based Study. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2004. Language, Mind, and Brain: Some psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015. “The Old English to-Dative Construction.” English Language and Linguistics 19 (1): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar, and Stefan Gries. 2006. “Ways of Trying in Russian: Clustering Behavioral Profiles.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21: 23–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. “Correspondence Analysis: Exploring Data and Identifying Patterns.” In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, ed. by Dylan Glynn, and Justyna Robinson, 443–485. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren. 2020. “What about Grammar? Using BERT Embeddings to Explore Functional-Semantic Shifts of Semi-Lexical and Grammatical Constructions.” In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Humanities Research (CHR 2020), 257–268.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2013. “Data in Construction Grammar.” In The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 168–190. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Susanne Flach. 2020. “Disentangling Modal Meanings with Distributional Semantics.” Digital Scholarship in the Humanities: fqaa014. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Florent Perek. 2015. “Meaning Change in a Petri Dish: Constructions, Semantic Vector Spaces, and Motion Charts.” Linguistics Vanguard 11: 339–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2007. “Complements versus Adjuncts? A Construction Grammar Account of English Prepositional Phrases.” Occasional Papers in Language and Linguistics 31: 92–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. “Construction Grammar: Introduction.”. In The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 1–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, and Eva Zehentner. forthc. “Prepositions in Early Modern English Argument Structure.” In Proceedings of the 20th ICEHL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, Paul. 2005. “Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction.” In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the roots, ed. by Mirjam Fried, and Hans Boas, 71–98. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Ann Taylor, and Beatrice Santorini. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 4.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, first edition, release 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Ariel Diertani. 2016. The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1990. “The Invariance Hypothesis: Is Abstract Reason Based on Image-Schemas?” Cognitive Linguistics 1 (1): 39–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, and Kris Heylen. 2014. “A Radically Data-Driven Construction Grammar: Experiments with Dutch Causative Constructions.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 17–46. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena, and Michael Tomasello. 2008. “Children’s First Language Acquisition from a Usage-Based Perspective.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Peter Robinson, and Nick Ellis, 168–196. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madabushi, Harish Tayyar, Laurence Romain, Dagmar Divjak, and Petar Milin. 2020. “CxGBERT: BERT meets Construction Grammar.” Preprint.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percillier, Michael. 2020. “Allostructions, Homostructions or a Constructional Family?: Changes in the Network of Secondary Predicate Constructions in Middle English.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 214–242. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study.” Linguistics 54 (1): 149–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers, and Freek Van de Velde. 2018. “Why and How We Need to Incorporate the Multi-Level Nature of the Constructicon into Corpus Research.” Paper presented at ICCG10.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte, and Andreas Baumann. 2021. “Of Absent Mothers, Strong Sisters and Peculiar Daughters: The Constructional Network of English NPN Constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 32(1): 97–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. “Collostructional analysis.” In The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015. Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva, and Elizabeth Traugott. 2020. “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 168–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue