Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 18:1 (2026) ► pp.1–36
Constructional contamination between two constructions with krijgen ‘to get’ in Dutch
National variation, bidirectionality and ambiguity avoidance
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
This article was made Open Access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the authors.
Published online: 20 October 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24015.del
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.24015.del
Abstract
Two structurally unrelated constructions can affect each other’s realization through a process that has been
called constructional contamination. According to this effect, lexemes participating in a grammatical alternation will deviate in
their stochastic preference for an alternant if they appear frequently in a contaminating construction that is formally similar to
the alternant in question. In the present article, we evaluate whether such contamination effects can also be found between two
constructions in Dutch which share the same form, including the verb krijgen ‘to get’ and a past participle, but
have distinct meanings (a “receptive” vs. a “resultative” meaning), and, if so, whether these effects occur in both directions. We
zoom in on word order differences: if krijgen and the participle appear in a verb cluster, both word orders are
possible in the receptive krijgen-construction, while, for the resultative krijgen-construction,
the order with krijgen preceding the participle is reported to be ungrammatical in the grammatical literature but
is not altogether absent from real-language corpora. Logistic regression analyses, based on data culled from the SoNaR-corpus,
show that the word order in both constructions is indeed affected by constructional contamination, thus showing that this
phenomenon can be bidirectional. Additionally, we demonstrate that these contamination effects differ between two national
varieties of Dutch, viz. Belgian vs. Netherlandic Dutch, and we argue that contamination can sometimes also result in a
disambiguating reflex. These results suggest that subtle differences in the organization of the constructional network can result
in (partly) different contamination effects.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Constructional contamination
- 2.2Red and green word order in Dutch verbal clusters
- 3.Data
- 3.1Data retrieval and cleaning
- 3.2Data annotation
- 3.3Data analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Receptive construction in Belgian Dutch
- 4.2Receptive construction in Netherlandic Dutch
- 4.3Resultative construction in Belgian Dutch
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Contamination of the receptive construction in Belgian Dutch: The role of horizontal links in constructional contamination
- 5.2Contamination of the resultative construction in Belgian Dutch: Bidirectionality in constructional contamination
- 5.3Contamination of the receptive construction in Netherlandic Dutch
- 5.3.1Constraints on constructional contamination
- 5.3.2Ambiguity avoidance and national variation in constructional contamination
- 6.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (50)
Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F. (2014). Applying
automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. Proceedings of COLING 2014,
the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical
papers, 1974–1984.
Bouso, T. (2022). The
English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional
contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American
Studies, 651, 13–36.
Broekhuis, H., & Corver, N. (2015). Syntax
of Dutch: Verb and verb phrases. Volume 2. Amsterdam University Press.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel
inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods &
Research, 33(2), 261–304.
Cohen, J. (1960). A
coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
Colleman, T. (2015). Constructionalization
and post-constructionalization: The constructional semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a diachronic
perspective. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic
Construction
Grammar (pp. 213–256). John Benjamins.
Colleman, T., & Rens, D. (2016). Het krijgen-passief en de werkwoordelijke eindgroep: Een diachrone voorstudie op basis van
Delpher [The krijgen-passive and verb clusters: A
diachronic preliminary study based on Delpher]. Studies van de Belgische Kring Voor
Linguïstiek/Travaux Du Cercle Belge de Linguistique/Papers of the Linguistic Society of
Belgium, 101, 1–15.
Coussé, E. (2008). Motivaties voor volgordevariatie: Een diachrone studie van werkwoordvolgorde in het
Nederlands [Motivations for word order variation: A diachronic study of verb
order in Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation]. Ghent University.
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different
speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic
Approaches to
Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253.
De Schutter, G. (1989). Casussen, syntactische functietoerekening en gemarkeerdheid [Cases,
syntactic function assignment and markedness]. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics.
De Sutter, G. (2005). Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke
eindgroepen [Red, green, corpus! A usage-based analysis of word order
variation in two-part verb clusters] [Doctoral
dissertation]. KU Leuven.
(2007). Naar een corpusgebaseerde, cognitief-functionele verklaring van de woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige
werkwoordelijke eindgroepen [Towards a corpus-based, cognitive-functional
explanation of word order variation in two-part verb clusters]. Nederlandse
Taalkunde, 12(4), 302–330.
De Sutter, G., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke
eindgroepen [Regional and stylistic effects on word order in verb
clusters]. Nederlandse
Taalkunde, 101, 97–128.
Delaby, G., & Colleman, T. (2023). Volgordevariatie in groepen met receptief krijgen + voltooid deelwoord in de Nederlands Nederlandse krantentaal:
Een synchroon en diachroon onderzoek [Word order variation in clusters with
receptive krijgen + past participle in Netherlandic Dutch newspaper language: A synchronic and diachronic
study]. Nederlandse
Taalkunde, 28(1), 1–35.
(2024). Nationale variatie bij het gebruik van de rode en groene volgorde met het receptieve hulpwerkwoord
krijgen [National variation in the use of the red and green order with the
receptive auxiliary verb krijgen]. Handelingen — Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor
Taal- En Letterkunde En
Geschiedenis, 761, 45–66.
Diessel, H. (2019). The
grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. D. (2007). The
‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 1(1–2), 71–83.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions:
A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
(2019). Explain
me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
Gries, S. Th. (2012). Frequencies, probabilities,
and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary
clarifications. Studies in
Language, 36(3), 477–510.
(2014). Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to
compute perform collostructional analyses [Computer software].
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending
collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal
of Corpus
Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging
evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and
constructions. Cognitive
Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676.
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National
variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive
explanations. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive
Sociolinguistics (pp. 153–204). Mouton de Gruyter.
Haeseryn, W., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene
Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Martinus Nijhof.
Hilpert, M., & Flach, S. (2022). A
case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the
passive. In K. Krawczak, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Grygiel (Eds.), Analogy
and contrast in language: Perspectives from Cognitive
Linguistics (pp. 283–302). John Benjamins.
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Krijgen
[To get]. In H. Bennis & W. van Lessen Kloeke (Eds.), Linguistics
in the
Netherlands (pp. 65–72). Foris.
Landsbergen, F. (2009). Cultural
evolutionary modeling of patterns in language change: Exercises in evolutionary
linguistics [Doctoral dissertation]. LOT Publications.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An
interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic
findings. Psychological
Review, 88(5), 375–407.
Olthof, M., Westendorp, M., Bloem, J., & Weerman, F. (2017). Synchronic
variation and diachronic change in Dutch two-verb clusters. Tijdschrift Voor Nederlandse
Taal-En
Letterkunde, 1(1), 34–60.
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013). The
construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written
Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential
speech and language technology for
Dutch (pp. 219–247). Springer.
Pardoen, J. (1991). De interpretatie van zinnen met de rode en de groene volgorde [The interpretation of sentences with the red and green order]. Forum Der
Letteren, 32(1), 1–22.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument
structure in usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based
perspectives. John Benjamins.
Pijpops, D., & Van De Velde, F. (2016). Constructional
contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia
Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581.
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van De Velde, F. (2018). Constructional
contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and
Frames, 10(2), 269–305.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and
environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2010). The
English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics
perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances
in Cognitive
Sociolinguistics (pp. 139–166). Mouton de Gruyter.
Traugott, E. C. (2008). “All
that he endeavoured to prove was…”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic
contexts. In C. Robin & K. Ruth (Eds.), Language
in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and
evolution (pp. 143–177). Kings College Publications.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using
structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each
other. Cognitive
Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420.
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S. (2023). Constructionist
approaches: Past, present, future. Cambridge University Press.
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). De Gruyter.
