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. 341–370

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 11
Modeling constructional variation

A multifactorial account of the contrast in construal between analogical causative constructions in Polish

 | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.11kra
Abstract
This chapter is a corpus-based quantitative investigation of an alternation between clausal and nominal complements observed for complex causal adpositions in Polish. Constructional alternations represent an excellent example of analogy and contrast in language. Not only do they encode conceptually comparable and yet subtly contrastive content in structurally contrasting forms, but the choice between them is necessarily determined by analogical reasoning. The primary objective of this study is to establish what contrasts conceptually the two forms and therefore determines the speaker’s choice of one of the two constructions and their corresponding construals. While so doing, the study tests empirically a specific hypothesis informed by relevant prior research. The hypothesis in question concerns the impact of the discursive status of information (i.e., its newness vs. givenness) on the choice between clausal and nominal complements of complex causal adpositions. The results, obtained through multivariate modelling of the data, provide evidence to corroborate the importance of this explanatory variable.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Data and analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Identifying statistical tendencies in the sample
    • 4.2Explaining linguistic choice beyond the sample
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (65)
References
Abraham, E. 1991. Why ‘because’? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text, 11(3), 323–339.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica, 38(1), 20–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold J., Wasow T., Losongco A., & Ginstrom R. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 17(1), 28–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, P. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, L. 2000. Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 687–707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R., & Radden, G. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2006. Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010a. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010b. Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality interaction in Russian. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches (305–330). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N. 2014. Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (405–442). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K. 2014. The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (223–251). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. 2010. Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (21–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (77–106.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Correspondence analysis Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–485). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016a. Quantifying polysemy. Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016b. Semasiology and onomasiology. Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms. New paradoxes: Re-contextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.). 2010. Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. (Eds.) 2014. Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th. 2001. A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 33–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grondelaers, St., 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: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (153–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heylen, K. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In St. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2012. Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hosmer, D., & S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V. 2009. What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K. 2015a. Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and narration (303–328). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015b. Polish blog-based corpus. Poznan: UAM.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. 2012. A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish ‘think’. PSiCL, 48, 439–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M. 2016. A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 475–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D. 2019. Operationalizing construal. A corpus-based study in cognition and communication constructions. Jezikoslovlje, 20(1), 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 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
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N, Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. 2013. Mapping constructional spaces: A contrastive analysis of English and Dutch analytic causatives. Linguistics, 51(4), 825–854. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (223–254). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson, & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text (295–325). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse Processes, 8, 281–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 2002. Introduction: Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speelman, D. 2014. Logistic regression A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (487–533). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. 2009. Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch doen and laten. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. (Eds.). 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szmrecsányi, B. M. 2005. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis (1031–1038). Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. The English genitive alternation in a Cognitive Sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (141–166). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Grammatical variation in British English dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Speelman D., & Geeraerts, D. 2005. Inflectional variation in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch: A usage-based account of the adjectival inflection. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (93–110). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wasow T. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wulff, St., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (265–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue