Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 43:2 (2026) ► pp.189–223

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

Testing the performance of S-curves for language change

ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven
ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with KU Leuven.

Published online: 23 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23065.nij
Abstract
This article investigates the effectiveness of sigmoid trajectories (S-curves) for statistically modelling language change. In diachronic linguistics, it is customary to fit a sigmoid regression line through data, on the assumption that such a curve fits the ideal language change. A coefficient with an associated p-value significantly different from zero is taken as evidence for the presence of a change. Here, we take the inverse perspective: given a known change, how well can the S-curve predict the actual data? We look at 15 well-known changes in Late Modern Dutch, in a genre-balanced corpus. For each change we built four different models: one model based on all the data and three partly blinded models, where either the beginning, middle or end of the S-curve is omitted. We check how well the S-curve can predict or reconstruct the unknown data, i.e. the blinded parts of the S-curve. We investigate in which cases (the type of change, the part of the data that is omitted, etc.) it is easier or harder to reconstruct the missing data.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Residuals
    • 2.2Selection of language changes
    • 2.3Models and variables
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Frequency of the residuals
    • 3.2Linear models
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Beöthy, Erzsébet & Gabriel Altmann. 1982. Das Piotrowski-Gesetz und der Lehnwortschatz. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1(2). 171–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berdicevskis, Aleksandrs, Evie Coussé, Alexander Koplenig & Yvonne Adesam. 2024. To drop or not to drop? Predicting the omission of the infinitival marker in a Swedish future construction. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20(1). 219–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blythe, Richard & William Croft. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language 881. 269–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, Bernard Clerck & Katrien Verveckken (eds.). 2016. Binominal syntagms as loci of synchronic variation and diachronic change. Language Sciences 531. 99–208.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon, 55–72. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Pascale, Stefano, Dirk Pijpops, Freek Van de Velde & Eline Zenner. 2022. Reassembling the pimped ride: A quantitative look at the integration of a borrowed expression. Frontiers in Communication 71. 777312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Schutter, Georges & Hanne Kloots. 2000. Relatieve woorden in het literaire Nederlands van de 17e eeuw [Relative words in 17th century literary Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 51. 325–342.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Isabeau. 2023. An assessment of the fourth law of Kuryłowicz: Does prototypicality of meaning affect language change? Cognitive Linguistics 34(2). 261–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Troij, Robbert & Freek Van de Velde. 2020. Beyond mere text frequency: Assessing subtle grammaticalization by different quantitative measures. A case study on the Dutch soort construction. Languages 5(4). 55–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. The crystallization of language over time. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
Denison, David. 2003. Log(ist)ic and simplistic S-curves. In Motives for language change, 54–70. Cambridge University Press. [URL]. (27 June, 2024).
Ebeling, Carl Lodewijk. 2006. Semiotaxis: over theoretische en Nederlandse syntaxis [Semiotaxis: About theoretical and Dutch syntax]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feltgen, Quentin, Benjamin Fagard & Jean-Pierre Nadal. 2017. Frequency patterns of semantic change: Corpus-based evidence of a near-critical dynamics in language change. Royal Society Open Science 4(11). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jacobus Johannes de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. ANS. 2nd edn. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Typological studies in language, vol. 491, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2004. Illocution, mood, and modality. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Stavros Skopeteas & Wolfgang Kesselheim (eds.), Morphologie, 1190–1201. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenset, Gard Buen & Barbara McGillivray. 2017. Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 26). 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2015. Descriptive adequacy of the S-curve model in diachronic studies of language change. In Christina Sanchez-Stockhammer (ed.), Studies in variation, contacts and change in English Vol 161. Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL]
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piersoul, Jozefien, Robbert De Troij & Freek Van de Velde. 2021. 150 years of written Dutch: The construction of the Dutch Corpus of Contemporary and Late Modern Periodicals. Nederlandse Taalkunde 26(3). 339–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Dirk Speelman. 2017. Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs: A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 207–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pintzuk, S. 2003. Variationist approaches to syntactic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 509–528. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2010. The impact of failed changes. In Anne Breitbarth, Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts & David Willis (eds.), Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics today, vol. 1591, 269–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooij, Jacobus Johannes de. 1988. Vergeten hebben en vergeten zijn [To have forgotten and to be forgotten]. Neerlandica extra Muros / Internationale Neerlandistiek 13–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert. 2010. Vroegmoderne relativa: Naar een diachrone constructiegrammatica [Early modern relatives: Towards a diachronic construction grammar]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15(1). 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruys, Eddy G. 2017. Two Dutch many ’s and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandberg, Anders, Stuart Armstrong, Rebecca Gorman & Rei England. 2021. Sigmoids behaving badly: Why they usually cannot predict the future as well as they seem to promise. arXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, Ina. 2008. De soort-constructie: Een nieuw patroon in het Nederlands [The soort construction: A new pattern in Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 131. 2–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonenboom, Judith. 1997. De geschiedenis van dat, wat en hetgeen in bijbelvertalingen [The history of dat, wat and hetgeen in Bible translations]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 21. 343–369.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sigurðardottir, Sigriður Saeunn. 2024. Language forecasting: With focus on variation and change in Icelandic Yale University PhD dissertation. [URL]
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tátrai, Dávid & Zoltán Várallyay. 2020. COVID-19 epidemic outcome predictions based on logistic fitting and estimation of its reliability. arXiv. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2004. De Middelnederlandse onpersoonlijke constructie en haar grammaticale concurrenten: Semantische motivering van de argumentstructuur [The Middle Dutch impersonal construction and its grammatical competitors: semantic motivation of the argument structure]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9(1). 48–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014a. Nederlandse predeterminatoren als levend fossiel [Dutch predeterminants as living fossils]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 19(1). 87–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014b. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–180. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Understanding grammar at the community level requires a diachronic perspective: Evidence from four case studies. Nederlandse Taalkunde 22(1). 47–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. Dutch. In Sebastian Kürschner & Antje Dammel (eds.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics, 1–24. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Jozefien Piersoul & Isabeau De Smet. 2020. De wervelkolom van taalverandering [The spine of language change]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 25(2). 371–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Fred Weerman. 2014. The resilient nature of adjectival inflection in Dutch. In Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Adjectives in Germanic and Romance, 113–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Johannes & Freek Van de Velde. 2003. Zo vreemd een groep [Such a strange group]. Taal en Tongval (Thematic issue 15/16). 237–250.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop. 1988. Over relatief dat en wat [About relative dat and wat]. De Nieuwe Taalgids 811. 194–205.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Iets over veel en vele [Something about veel and vele]. In E. C. Schermer-Vermeer, W. G. Klooster & A. F. Florijn (eds.), De kunst van de grammatica. Artikelen aangeboden aan Frida Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst bij haar afscheid als hoogleraar Taalkunde van het hedendaags Nederlands aan de universiteit van Amsterdam, 111–118. Amsterdam: Vakgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde van de Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Kroniek van de taalkunde 2002/2003. Neerlandica Extra Muros. 421. 53–59.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of the syntaxis of Dutch]. Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Taal op drift: Lange-termijnontwikkelingen in taal en samenleving [Language adrift: long-term developments in language and society]. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop & Kees Van der Horst. 1999. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de twintigste eeuw [The history of Dutch in the 20th century]. Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 14(2–3): 213–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2017. The Actuation Problem. In Adam Ledgeway & Ian Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, 403–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred & Petra De Wit. 1999. The decline of the genitive in Dutch. Linguistics 37(6). 1155–1192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov & Marvin Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue