Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 22:4 (2017) ► pp.490–520
A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions
Published online: 1 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16128.per
Abstract
This paper describes a method to automatically identify stages of language change in diachronic corpus data, combining variability-based neighbour clustering, which offers objective and reproducible criteria for periodization, and distributional semantics as a representation of lexical meaning. This method partitions the history of a grammatical construction according to qualitative stages of productivity corresponding to different semantic sets of lexical items attested in it. Two case studies are presented. The first case study on the hell-construction (“Verb the hell out of NP”) shows that the semantic development of a construction does not always match that of its quantitative aspects, like token or type frequency. The second case study on the way-construction compares the results of the present method with those of collostructional analysis. It is shown that the former measures semantic changes and their chronology with greater precision. In sum, this method offers a promising approach to exploring semantic variation in the lexical fillers of constructions and to modelling constructional change.
Keywords: constructions, diachrony, distributional semantics, periodization, productivity
Article outline
- 1.Introduction: Stages of language change
- 2.Periodization and variability-based neighbour clustering
- 3.A distributional semantic approach to VNC
- 4.Case studies
- 4.1The hell-construction
- 4.2The way-construction
- 4.3Comparison with collostructional analysis
- 5.Summary and conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (46)
Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 359–370.
Baayen, H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 21 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Baayen, H., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bullinaria, J., & Levy, J. (2007). Extracting semantic representations from word cooccurrence statistics: A computational study. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 510–526.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.
Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 231, 65–85.
Bybee, J., & Eddington, D. (2006). A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2), 323–355.
Colleman, T., & De Clerck, B. (2011). Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 183–209.
Davies, M. (2012). Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157.
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dewey, T. K. (2006). The origins and development of Germanic V2: Evidence from alliterative verse (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Dinu, G., Pham, N. T., & Baroni, M. (2013). DISSECT: DIStributional SEmantics Composition Toolkit. In Proceedings of the System Demonstrations of ACL 2013 (51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics) (pp. 31–36). East Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
Erk, K. (2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 635–653.
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 379–401.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gries, S., & Hilpert, M. (2008). The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora, 3(1), 59–81.
(2010). From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 293–320.
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1). 97–129.
Gries, S., & Stoll, S. (2009). Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 16(3), 217–242.
Hilpert, M. (2006). Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 243–257.
(2008). Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2012a). Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2012b). Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2013). Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hock, H. H., & Joseph, B. D. (1996). History, Language Change and Language Relationship. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D. J. (2008). Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 347–378.
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284.
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica, 20(1), 1–31.
Lorenz, D. (2012). Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Freiburg, Germany.
Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 660–665). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Noël, D. (2008). The nominative and infinitive in Late Modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 314–340.
Noël, D., & Colleman, T. (2010).
Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 157–182.
Onysko, A., & Calude, A. (2014). Comparing the usage of Maori loans in spoken and written New Zealand English: A case study of Maori, Pakeha, and Kiwi
. In E. Zenner & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), New Perspectives on Lexical Borrowing: Onomasiological, Methodological and Phraseological Innovations (pp. 143–169). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Perek, F. (2016a). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188.
(2016b). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Ahead-of-print. Retrieved from (last accessed August 2017).
Rosemeyer, M. (2014). Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by (21)
Cited by 21 other publications
Paolini, Chiara, Hubert Cuyckens, Dirk Speelman & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
Hartmann, Stefan & Alexander Willich
Smith, Chris A.
GRIES, STEFAN T.
Gries, Stefan T.
Nijs, Julie & Freek Van de Velde
2023. Resemanticising ‘free’ variation. In Free Variation in Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 234], ► pp. 229 ff.
Trips, Carola & Peter A. Stokes
Shen, Tian & R. Harald Baayen
Ungerer, Tobias
2022. Review of Sommerer & Smirnova (2020): Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:2 ► pp. 317 ff.
Hundt, Marianne
2021. “The next Morning I got a Warrant for the Man and his Wife, but he was fled”. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 199 ff.
Budts, Sara & Peter Petré
2020. Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction
Grammar. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 317 ff.
Davidse, Kristin & Hendrik De Smet
Percillier, Michael
2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional
family?. In Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 27], ► pp. 213 ff.
Percillier, Michael
Percillier, Michael
2022. Adapting the Dynamic Model to historical linguistics. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 359], ► pp. 5 ff.
Sundquist, John D.
2020. Productivity, richness, and diversity of light verb constructions in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 10:3 ► pp. 349 ff.
SUNDQUIST, JOHN D.
Wagner, Susanne
2019. Whyvery goodin India might bepretty goodin North America. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:4 ► pp. 445 ff.
[no author supplied]
2021. “The next Morning I got a Warrant for the Man and his Wife, but he was fled”. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218],
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
