Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 12:2 (2025) ► pp.292–321

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

Similative-pretence constructions in language contact situations

A Usage-Based Construction Grammar perspective

ORCiD logo with link | University of Hong Kong
ORCiD logo with link | Justus-Liebig University Giessen | UC Santa Barbara
Published online: 10 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.25015.olg
Abstract
The present study introduces a method that can be used to explore in a quantitatively rigorous yet less demanding way (both in terms of data and statistical requirements) how constructional templates and their lexical preferences (lexico-syntactic transference) diffuse in language contact situations. The study investigates the influence of Mexican Spanish similative-pretence constructions on Huasteca Nahuatl similative-pretence constructions as a proof-of-concept kind of application for our method. Speakers of Huasteca Nahuatl have borrowed the markers komo ‘like’ and komo si ‘as if’ from Mexican Spanish to express similative (e.g., she swims like a fish) and pretence meanings (e.g., she swims as if she were a fish), respectively. Using a conditional inference forest, the paper demonstrates that speakers of Huasteca Nahuatl have not only borrowed these markers from Mexican Spanish, but also lexical preferences (e.g., verb lemmas) of the constructions in which these markers occur. These findings show that the rigid partition of structural levels that has been adopted by traditional models of language contact proves inadequate for describing complex language situations. The method introduced here provides an integrative, non-modular way to explore language contact from a Usage-Based Construction Grammar perspective.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods and results
    • 2.1Corpus data, data extraction, and annotation
    • 2.2The statistical analysis and results
      • 2.2.1Individual conditional expectations
      • 2.2.2Prototypes
  • 3.Discussion
    • 3.1ICE discussion
    • 3.2Prototype discussion
    • 3.3Implications
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (65)
References
Anderson, G. D. S. (2005). Language contact in South Central Siberia. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Batchelor, R., & Pountain, C. J. (2005). Using Spanish: A guide to contemporary usage (2nd edtion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Béchet, C. (2020). An empirical perspective on the contact between English and French: A case study on substitutive complex prepositions. Linguistics Vanguard, 6(2), Article 20180051. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Widening the scope: Recent trends in constructional contact linguistics. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bullock, B. E., Serigos, J., & Toribio, A. J. (2021). Exploring a loan translation and its consequences in an oral bilingual corpus. Journal of Language Contact, 13(3), 612–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1987). Syntactic change in Pipil. International Journal of American Linguistics, 53(3), 253–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of language contact: English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flores Farfán, J. A. (2010). Sociolinguistics in Mexico: Defining new agendas. In M. Ball (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of sociolinguistics around the world (pp. 34–41). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. (2014). La comparaison et son expression en français [Comparison and its expression in French]. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grant, A. P. (2012). Contact, convergence, and conjunctions: A cross-linguistic study of borrowing correlations among certain kinds of discourse, phasal adverbial, and dependent clause markers. In C. Chamoreau & I. Léglise (Eds.), Dynamics of contact-induced language change (pp. 311–358). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction (3rd revised and extended edition). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Adelman, A. S. (2014). Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp. 35–54). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hakimov, N., & Backus, A. (2021). Usage-based contact linguistics: Effects of frequency and similarity in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 13(3), 459–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hernandez-Mena, C. (2019). TEDx Spanish corpus. Audio and transcripts in Spanish taken from the TEDx Talks. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hetterle, K. (2015). Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickey, R. (2010). The handbook of language contact. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, J. H., & Hill, K. C. (1986). Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of syncretic language in Central Mexico. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 21, 243–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.). (2016). Constructions across grammars. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., & Zeileis, A. (2015). Partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1), 3905–3909.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1999). Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?. Atlantis, 301, 15–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In K. Beals (Ed.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory (pp. 180–201). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kusters, W. (2008). Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (Eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, and change (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lara, L. F., Medina Urrea, A., Rosales Martínez, A., Diez Sánchez, C. F., & Serralde Galicia, J. L. (2018). El Corpus del español mexicano contemporáneo. [URL]
Leclercq, B., & Morin, C. (2023). No equivalence: A new principle of no synonymy. Constructions, 15(1), 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leufkens, S. (2013). The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 28(2), 323–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindsay, M. & Aronoff, M. (2013). Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In N. Hathout, F. Montermini & J. Tseng (Eds.), Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (pp. 133–153). Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 31–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, M. (1992). External triggers and internal guidance in syntactic development: Coordinating conjunction. In M. Gerritsen & D. Stein (Eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change (pp. 89–130). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Exuberant complexity: The interplay of morphology, syntax, and prosody in Central Alaskan Yupʼik. Linguistic Discovery, 10(1), 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2025). Constructions and language contact. In M. Fried & K. Nikiforidou (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 469–496). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olguín Martínez, J. (2021). Hypothetical manner constructions in world-wide perspective. Journal of Linguistic typology at the crossroads, 1(1), 2–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024b). Semantically negative clause-linkage: ‘Let alone’ constructions, expletive negation, and theoretical implications. Linguistic Typology, 28(1), 1–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olguín Martínez, J., & Gries, S. Th. (2024). If not for-if it weren’t/wasn’t for counterfactual constructions: A multivariate extension of collostructional analysis. Cognitive Semantics, 101, 158–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olko, J. (2020). Nahuas and Spaniards in contact: Cross-cultural transfer as seen through the Nahuatl lexicon. In A. Brylak, J. Madajczak, J. Olko & J. Sullivan (Eds.), Loans in colonial and modern Nahuatl: A contextual dictionary, (pp. 10–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olko, J., Borges, R., & Sullivan, J. (2018). Convergence as the driving force of typological change in Nahuatl. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 71(3), 467–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Royo Viñuales, V., & Van linden, A. (2024). Beyond hypothetical manner: A functional typology of insubordinate como si-clauses. Folia Linguistica. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sakel, J. (2007). Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 15–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulze, W. (2017). Toward a cognitive typology of like-expressions. In Y. Treis & M. Vanhove (Eds.), Similative and equative constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 33–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.) (2020). Nodes and networks in diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stolz, C., & Stolz, T. (1996a). Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika: Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt [Function word borrowing in Mesoamerica: Spanish-Amerindian language contact]. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 49(1), 86–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996b). Transpazifische Entlehnungsisoglossen: Hispanismen in Funktionswortinventaren beiderseits der Datumsgrenze [Transpacific borrowing isoglosses: Hispanisms in function word inventories on both sides]. In N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, & T. Stolz (Eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen: Beiträge zum 10. Bochum-Essener-Symposium vom 30. 06.-01.07.1995 an der Universität GH Essen (pp. 262–291). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strobl, C., Rothacher, Y., Theiler, S., & Henninger, M. (2024). Detecting interactions with random forests: A comment on Gries’ words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in grammaticalization. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 624–647). Oxford: Blackwell. 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
Treis, Y. (2012). Switch-reference and Omotic-Cuhistic language contact in Southwest Ethiopia. Journal of Language Contact, 5(1), 80–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2009). Sociolinguistic typology and complexification. In G. Sampson, D. Gil & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable (pp. 98–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trujillo, R. (1990). Sobre la explicación de algunas construcciones de ‘como’ [An explanation regarding constructions with como ‘like’]. Verba, (17), 249–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1946). The Milpa Alta dialect of Aztec (with notes on the Classical and the Tepoztlan dialects). In H. Hoijer (Ed.), Linguistic structures of Native America (pp. 367–397). NewYork: Viking Fund Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiesinger, E. (2021). The Spanish verb-particle construction [V para atrás]: Disentangling constructional contact and change. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 139–187). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D. V. (2013). One construction, two source languages: Hacer with an English infinitive in bilingual discourse. In A. Carvalho & S. Beadrie (Eds.), Proceedings from the 6th International Workshop on Spanish sociolinguistics (pp. 123–134). Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenner, E., Backus, A., & Winter-Froemel, E. (2019). Cognitive contact linguistics: Placing usage, meaning and mind at the core of contact-induced variation and change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue