Cover not available

In:Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Elena Smirnova
[Constructional Approaches to Language 27] 2020
► pp. 243–274

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

Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links

To-contraction in American English

 | Universität Rostock
Published online: 13 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.07lor
Abstract
The guiding question of this paper is how (horizontal) connections are established when new items enter the network of constructions. It presents a quantitative, corpus-based study of the development of to-contraction (e.g. want to > wanna) in American English since the 19th century. From a plethora of earlier forms, gonna, wanna and gotta emerge, first as representations of phonetic reduction, but in time claiming their place as newly emerged, separate nodes in the constructional network. As their frequency increases, their usage patterns (relative to the full form) become increasingly similar. I propose that this marks the emergence of a horizontal link, which can be described as an emerging “metaconstruction”. The study discusses the status of these forms as either phonetic variants, potential allostructions, or independent form–meaning pairings, and provides first-hand evidence for emergent connections via mechanisms of analogy in language. Moreover, it makes an argument that (changing) usage patterns reflect (changing) constructional links and degrees of entrenchment.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Horizontal links and the emergence of schemata
  • 2.To-infinitives and contractions
  • 3.Corpus study 1: The history of non-conventional to-contraction
  • 4.Corpus study 2: Determinants of variation of contracted and full forms in the 20th century
    • 4.1Determinants of variation
      • 4.1.1Variables measuring the degree of entrenchment
        • Sentence type
        • Ellipsis
        • Sentence length
      • 4.1.2Variables measuring the degree of conventionalization
        • Register: Latin-based collocate
        • Genre: Movie vs Drama
      • 4.1.3Variables relating to both entrenchment and conventionalization
        • Attraction
        • Linguistic context: Subject
    • 4.2Modeling the data
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Contractions in the constructional network and the emergence of horizontal links
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (62)
References
Bell, A., Jurafsky, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 1001–1024. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P., & Blevins, J. (2009). Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2004). You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 479–491). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1980). WANNA and the gradience of auxiliaries. In G. Brettschneider, & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (pp. 292–299). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broadbent, J. M., & Sifaki, E. (2013). To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics, 17(3), 513–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions all over: case studies and theoretical implications. Constructions, n.pag. special volume 1.
Croft, W. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In M. Fried, & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daugs, R. (Forthcoming). Contractions, constructions and constructional change: Investigating the constructionhood of English modal contractions from a diachronic perspective. To appear in I. Depraetere, B. Cappelle, & M. Hilpert (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 560 million words, 1990–2017. [URL]
(2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL]
De Smet, H., & Fischer, O. (2017). The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. E. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 240–268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 296–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egan, T. (2008a). Emotion verbs with to-infinitive complements: From specific to general predication. In M. Gotti, M. Dossena, & R. Dury (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2006, Volume 1: Syntax and morphology (pp. 223–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008b). Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2010). An analogical approach to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues (pp. 181–219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freudinger, M. (2017). Shoulda, coulda, coulda – non-canonical forms on the move? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 65(3), 319–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2015). Some current quantitative problems in Corpus Linguistics and a sketch of some solutions. Language and Linguistics, 16(1), 93–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrell Jr., F. E. (2017). rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 5.1-1. [URL]
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jankowski, B. (2004). A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 23(2), 85–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaatari, H. (2016). Variation across two dimensions: Testing the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density Principle on adjectival data. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 533–558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karlsson, E. (2018). A Radical Construction Grammar approach to construction split in the diachrony of the spatial particles of Ancient Greek. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 277–311). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krug, M. G. (2000). Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2004). Quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society, vol. 1, 2nd edition (pp. 6–21). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larreya, P. (2009). Towards a typology of modality in Language. In R. Salkie, P. Bussutil, & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description (pp. 9–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leino, J., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp. 191–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2016). When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2013). Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. Freiburg: NIHIN Studies / Universitätsbibliothek.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, D., & Tizón-Couto, D. (Forthcoming). It’s not just frequency, it’s not just modality: production and perception of English semi-modals. To appear in P. Hohaus, & R. Schulze (Eds.), Modal co-text, modal context – re-assessing modal expression in the light of converging evidence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mair, C. (2014). Do we got a difference? Divergent developments of semi-auxiliary (have) got (to) in British and American English. In M. Hundt (Ed.), Late Modern English syntax (pp. 56–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, C., & Leech, G. (2006). Current changes in English syntax. In B. Aarts, & A. S. McMahon (Eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics (pp. 318–342). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2014). From contraction to construction? The recent life of ’ll. In M. Hundt (Ed.), Late Modern English syntax (pp. 77–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2), 601–635.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Malvar, E. (2007). Elucidating the transition period in linguistic change: The expression of future in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 19, 121–169. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1997). The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language, 73, 79–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.2.Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Testing two processing principles with respect to the extraction of elements out of complement clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 463–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, M. (2016). Modeling frequency effects in language change. In S. Pfänder, & H. Behrens (Eds.), Experience counts: Frequency effects in language (pp. 175–208). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rudnicka, K. (2018). Variation of sentence length across time and genre. In R. J. Whitt (Ed.), Diachronic corpora, genre, and language change (pp. 220–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D’Arcy, A. (2007). The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide, 28(1), 47–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(4), 523–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–180). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Azorin, Leela & Laure Lansari
2025. How progressive is gonna be Ving?. In The Progressive Revisited [Studies in Language Companion Series, 236], ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Basile, Carmelo Alessandro, Agnès Celle & Cameron Morin
2025. Cognitive approaches to variation and change in the English modal domain: introduction. English Language and Linguistics 29:3 ► pp. 444 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Meili
2025. Modeling a network of the ba-constructions in Contemporary Mandarin. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Liu, Meili, Hubert Cuyckens & Fangqiong Zhan
2025. Language change in a constructional network: the emergence of Mandarin [bi N hai N] comparative constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Mikkelsen, Olaf & Cameron Morin
2025. Register as a source of non-equivalent contracted constructions: going to and gonna in British English. English Language and Linguistics 29:3 ► pp. 609 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Freek Van de Velde
2025. Constructional Networks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Alba-Salas, Josep
2024. Rising datives: tomar ‘take’ expressions with nouns of ‘emotion’ and constructional network reconfiguration in Spanish. Folia Linguistica 58:s45-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
TIZÓN-COUTO, DAVID
2022. A multivariate account of particle alternation after bare-formtryin native varieties of English. English Language and Linguistics 26:4 ► pp. 645 ff. DOI logo
Tizón-Couto, David & David Lorenz
2021. Variables are valuable: making a case for deductive modeling. Linguistics 59:5 ► pp. 1279 ff. DOI logo
Tizón-Couto, David & David Lorenz
2025. Learning to predict: Second language perception of reduced multi-word sequences. Second Language Research 41:2 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Daugs, Robert
2020.  Revisiting global and intra-categorial frequency shifts in the English modals. In Re-assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020.  Not just frequency, not just modality. In Re-assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue