In:Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 213–242
Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family?
Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per
Abstract
The network of prepositional secondary predicate
constructions has undergone massive changes throughout the history
of English. While in Old English forms marked with to (e.g. crown someone as king) used to dominate, forms marked with as dominate
in Present-Day English (e.g. crown someone as king). The present
paper studies the changes in the network of such constructions
marked with as, for, into, and to in the Middle English
period by analysing changes in frequency and semantic similarity. A
corpus study in the PPCME2 was conducted, based on a Distributional
Semantic Model. The results indicate a sudden turning point in the
early Middle English period whereby to-marked forms
quickly lost their importance. In addition to providing insights
into the (changing) nature of polysemic links and allostructions,
the description of constructions copied from Anglo-Norman introduces
a language contact component to the framework of Diachronic
Construction Grammar.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Secondary predicate constructions in Present-Day English and in
the history of English
- 2.1Characterisation of secondary predicate constructions in Present-Day English
- 2.2Diachronic developments of prepositional secondary predicate constructions in the history of English
- 3.Allostructions, polysemy and homostructions in the network of secondary predicate constructions
- 4.Empirical analysis: Methodology
- 5.Empirical analysis: Results
- 5.1Changes in frequency
- 5.2The rise of French-based verbs
- 5.3Development of semantic differences
- 6.Changes in the network of prepositional secondary predicates constructions
- 7.Conclusion
Notes References
References (40)
Bosworth, J., Toller, T. N., Christ, S., & Tichý, O. (2010). Bosworth-Toller
Anglo-Saxon
Dictionary. Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Retrieved
from [URL]
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle
placement and the case for
“allostructions”. Constructions,
Special Volume
1, 28 pages.
Colleman, T. (2016). A
reflection on constructionalization and constructional
borrowing, inspired by an emerging Dutch replica of the
‘time’-away
construction. Belgian Journal
of
Linguistics, 30, 91–113.
Croft, W. A. (2003). Lexical
rules vs. Constructions: A false
dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation
in Language: Studies in honor of Günter
Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Davies, M. (2008). The
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million
words,
1990-present. Retrieved
from [URL]
(2010). The
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million
words, 1810–2009. Retrieved
from [URL]
(2013). Corpus
of News on the Web (NOW): 3+ billion words from 20
countries, updated every
day. Retrieved
from [URL]
D’hoedt, F. (2017). Language
change in constructional networks: The development of the
English Secondary Predicate
Construction (PhD
thesis). Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
D’hoedt, F., & Cuyckens, H. (2017). The
development of the as-Secondary Predicate Construction:
Constructionalization and
internalization. Language
Sciences, 59, 16–35.
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). Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The
English Resultative as a Family of
Constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568.
Gries, S. T., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The
identification of stages in diachronic data:
Variability-based neighbour
clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81.
Harrell Jr, F. E., & Dupont, C. (2018). Hmisc:
Harrell Miscellaneous. Retrieved
from [URL]
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language
contact and grammatical
change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar
is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of
Diasystematic Construction
Grammar. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions
in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena
in Germanic
languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The
Cambridge grammar of the English
language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ingham, R. (2012). The
Transmission of Anglo-Norman: Language history and language
acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced
change in a code-copying
framework. In M. C. Jones & Esch (Eds.), Language
Change (pp. 285–313). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (2000). The
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Second
Edition (PPCME2), release
3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
from [URL]
Levin, B. (1993). English
verb classes and alternations: A preliminary
investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McSparran, F., Schaffner, P., Latta, J., Pagliere, A., Powell, C., & Stoeffler, M. (2001). Middle
English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved
from [URL]
OED
Online. (2018). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved
from [URL]
Percillier, M. (2016). Verb
lemmatization and semantic verb classes in a Middle English
corpus. In Proceedings
of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing
(KONVENS
2016) (pp. 209–214). Retrieved
from [URL]
(2018). A
Toolkit for lemmatising, analysing, and visualising Middle
English
Data. In A. U. Frank, C. Ivanovic, F. Mambrini, M. Passarotti, & C. Sporleder (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Second Workshop on Corpus-Based Research in the
Humanities
CRH-2 (Vol. 1, pp. 153–160). Vienna. Retrieved
from [URL]
Perek, F. (2015). Argument
Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental
and corpus-based
perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perek, F., & Hilpert, M. (2017). A
distributional semantic approach to the periodization of
change in the productivity of
constructions. International
Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 22(4), 490–520.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A
comprehensive grammar of the English
language. London: Longman.
Randall, B. (2010). Corpus
Search (Version
2.003.00) [Computer
Software]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved
from [URL]
R Core
Team. (2018). R:
A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved
from [URL]
Taylor, A., Warner, A., Pintzuk, S., & Beths, F. (2003). The
York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose
(YCOE). York: University of York. Retrieved
from [URL]
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trips, C., & Stein, A. (2018). A
comparison of multi-genre and single-genre corpora in the
context of contact-induced
change. In R. J. Whitt (Ed.), Diachronic
Corpora, Genre, and Language
Change (pp. 241–260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
(2019). Contact-Induced
Changes in the Argument Structure of Middle English Verbs on
the Model of Old
French. Journal of Language
Contact, 12(1), 232–267.
Trotter, D. (2006a). Anglo-Norman
Dictionary 2 Online
edition. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Retrieved
from [URL]
(2006b). Anglo-Norman
Online
Hub. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Retrieved
from [URL]
Verkerk, A. (2009). A
semantic map of secondary
predication. Linguistics in
the
Netherlands, 26, 115–126.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Hundt, Marianne & Laetitia van Driessche
2025. Prepositions in English Argument Structure Constructions. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 79 ff.
Percillier, Michael, Yela Schauwecker, Achim Stein & Carola Trips
Trips, Carola & Peter A. Stokes
Middeke, Kirsten
Ungerer, Tobias
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff.
Laporte, Samantha, Tove Larsson & Larissa Goulart
2021. Testing the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction. Constructions and Frames 13:2 ► pp. 230 ff.
Zehentner, Eva
2020. Cognitive reality of constructions as a theoretical and methodological challenge in historical
linguistics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 371 ff.
Zehentner, Eva
[no author supplied]
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.
