Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.30–63

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

Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks

Two sides of the same coin?

ORCiD logo with link | University of Edinburgh | Concordia University
Published online: 2 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22011.ung
Abstract
Recent models of constructional networks combine vertical links between schemas and their subtypes with horizontal links between constructions at the same level of abstraction. It remains unclear, however, whether vertical and horizontal analyses express distinct information about the network, or whether one can be reformulated in terms of the other. In this paper, it is argued that vertical and horizontal links do not encode distinct cognitive mechanisms but that they are notational variants for representing a common notion of constructional similarity. The practical advantages of each notation are outlined, and some potential objections to the present account are addressed.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A blurred distinction: Previous accounts of vertical and horizontal links
    • 2.1Vertical (inheritance) links
    • 2.2The allostructions model
    • 2.3The paradigmatic model
  • 3.The proposal: Vertical and horizontal links as notational variants
    • 3.1Similarity as a common conceptual ground
    • 3.2Notational variants
    • 3.3Advantages of each notation
    • 3.4The nature of schemas
  • 4.Some possible objections (and replies)
    • 4.1What about horizontal syntagmatic relations?
    • 4.2Aren’t some things only encoded at the level of the schema?
    • 4.3Do (some) horizontal links express contrast rather than similarity?
    • 4.4Is it only strong horizontal links that can give rise to a schema?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Ambridge, B. (2020). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40(5–6), 640–659. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 1–59). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budts, S., & Petré, P. (2020). Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 317–351). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 341, 421–435.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, 1, 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Travassos, P. F., Mota, N. A., Costa, M. G. da, Nunes, L. F., Martins, G. L., & Vieira, M. dos S. M. (2021). Constructional variation – unveiling aspects of linguistic knowledge: Interview with Bert Cappelle. Revista Da Anpoll, 521, 258–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. (2020). The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. In C. Fedriani & M. Napoli (Eds.), The diachrony of ditransitives (pp. 137–168). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 931–951. 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. 296–322). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 278–315). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 301–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferlež, J., & Gams, M. (2004). Shortest-path semantic distance measure in WordNet v2.0. Informatica, 28(4), 385–390.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. (2022). Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. In K. Krawczak, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Grygiel (Eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 245–282). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52(2), 125–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gyselinck, E. (2018). The role of expressivity and productivity in (re)shaping the constructional network : A corpus-based study into synchronic and diachronic variation in the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction in 19th to 21st Century Dutch. Ghent University PhD dissertation.
(2020). (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network hierarchy. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 107–140). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. (2016). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 101, 139–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (2nd ed., pp. 90–96). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 107–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 243–274). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 54–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percillier, M. (2020). Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 213–242). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 283–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–36). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 185–218). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2020a). Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 69–103). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Touretzky, D. S. (1986). The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman.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. 141–179). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, D., & Powers, D. M. W. (2005). Measuring semantic similarity in the taxonomy of WordNet. In V. Estivill-Castro (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Australasian Computer Science Conference – Volume 38 (pp. 315–322). Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 167–212). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Becker, Israela & Mira Ariel
2025. Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word. Constructions and Frames 17:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2025. From sequentiality to schematization: network-based analysis of covarying collexemes in Mandarin degree adverb constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21:3 ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo
Colleman, Timothy
2025. A French connection?. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Delaby, Gauthier, Timothy Colleman & Marithé Buysse
2025. Constructional contamination blocking full-fledged alternation? (The lack of) word order variation in Dutch verb clusters with resultative krijgen ‘to get’. Cognitive Linguistics 36:3 ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Flach, Susanne
2025. ‘Quirky construction looking for syntactically flexible verb’: creativity and productivity in a dynamic link-based network perspective. English Language and Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 298 ff. DOI logo
Hagel, Anna
2025. Schemas all the way down?. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2025. Constructionalisation / Constructional Change. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Laws, Jacqueline & Geert Booij
2025. Complex verbs in English. Constructions and Frames 17:2 ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia
2025. Oh, multimodality where art thou?. Constructions and Frames DOI logo
Liu, Meili
2025. Modeling a network of the ba-constructions in Contemporary Mandarin. Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo
Liu, Yuanmeng, Na Liu & Fuyin Thomas Li
2025. Constructional variation, grammaticalization, and constructional network of extreme degree resultatives in Mandarin: A quantitative analysis. Lingua 326 ► pp. 104017 ff. DOI logo
Shadrova, Anna
2025. No three productions alike: Lexical variability, situated dynamics, and path dependence in task-based corpora. Open Linguistics 11:1 DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Eva Zehentner
2025.  Go to church or die in prison: PPs with bare institutional nouns in the history of English. Folia Linguistica 59:s46-s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
van Trijp, Remi
2025. Moving Past Slot-Fillers: Balancing English Argument Structure with Fluid Construction Grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 73:3 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt
2024. Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Gillmann, Melitta
2024. Allostructions and stancetaking: a corpus study of the German discourse management constructionsWo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind. Cognitive Linguistics 35:1 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2024. The road ahead for Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 255 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