Cover not available

In:Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 283–302

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

Chapter 9
A case of constructional contamination in English

Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive

 | Université de Neuchâtel
 | University of Zurich
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.09hil
Abstract
This chapter discusses a case of what Pijpops and Van de Velde (2016) call constructional contamination. Specifically, we investigate the influence of English modified noun phrases on variation in adverb placement in the passive. On the basis of data from the COCA, we argue that highly frequent nominal expressions such as sexually transmitted disease influence adverb placement in the passive, which offers speakers a choice between adverb-initial order (The disease was sexually transmitted) and adverb-final order (The disease was transmitted sexually). Our results thus corroborate findings from Dutch corpora (Pijpops and Van de Velde 2016) and suggest that construction al contamination is a phenomenon that can be observed across different languages. We further discuss the role of constructional contamination for analogy and contrast.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructional contamination
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data retrieval
    • 3.2Differences between adverb-initial and adverb-final passive examples
    • 3.3Data annotation
      • 3.3.1Dependent variable: Order of adverb and participle
      • 3.3.2NP frequency
      • 3.3.3String resemblance
      • 3.3.4Adverb and participle
      • 3.3.5Mutual association strength between adverb and participle
    • 3.4Splitting the data into two datasets
    • 3.5Data analysis
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (20)
References
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 87, 55–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. 2007. The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: 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, St. Th. 2015. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: 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), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. 2017. Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (57–74). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–582. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Delaby, Gauthier & Timothy Colleman
2025. Constructional contamination between two constructions with krijgen ‘to get’ in Dutch. Constructions and Frames 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
Sommerer, Lotte & Freek Van de Velde
2025. Constructional Networks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Jingjing & Le Cheng
2025. Beyond binary opposition: philosophical reflections on a multi-level Language cognitive model from an embodied constructional perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2024. Corpus linguistics meets historical linguistics and construction grammar: how far have we come, and where do we go from here?. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:3 ► pp. 481 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2025. Frequency. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Xiao, Huangyang, Qiao Zhou & Ruyi Sun
2023. Martin Hilpert: Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar . Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Xiao, Huangyang, Qiao Zhou & Ruyi Sun
2023. Martin Hilpert: Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar . Folia Linguistica 57:1 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2022. Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction. English Studies 103:8 ► pp. 1334 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2022. Lectal contamination. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara & Pablo Ruano San Segundo
2021. Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction. Functions of Language 28:2 ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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