Cover not available

Article published In: Selected Papers from Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy 4
Edited by Thorsten Piske and Thomas Herbst
[Pedagogical Linguistics 7:1] 2026
► pp. 147–188

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

Contingency and prototypicality

Observations on the learning of argument structure constructions

ORCiD logo with link | University of Birmingham
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 University of Birmingham.

Published online: 17 November 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.25006.rom
Abstract
This paper offers some observations on the learning of argument structure constructions as well as recommendations for teaching argument structure constructions to intermediate to advanced learners, notably argument structure constructions that could be considered to alternate such as the intransitive non-causative construction (INCCx) and the transitive causative construction (TCCx). Our aim is to show that for such schematic argument constructions, generalisations emerge from the interaction between the verb, its arguments and the construction(s) they occur in. Through a distributional semantics analysis of the themes (the argument in subject position in the INCCx and object position in the TCCx), we start by identifying constructional meaning for each construction. Then, through computational simulations of learning we identify which elements in the constructions are the most reliable cues for learners to choose one or the other construction. This work is inspired by constructional approaches to language (e.g., Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and learning theory (for linguistics, e.g., Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Through our constructional approach and learning simulations, we identify characteristics for each construction that can be used to teach learners the use of each construction generally. We also observe that the TCCx appears easier to learn and potentially more productive than the INCCx and provide examples of pedagogical materials.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Constructions, prototypes, and contingency
    • 1.1Alternations vs. constructions
    • 1.2Constructional meaning and prototypicality
    • 1.3Learning through association
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Distributional semantics
    • 2.2Learning algorithm
  • 3.Data
    • 3.1Data collection and annotation
    • 3.2Data preparation
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Distributional semantics analysis
    • 4.2Learning algorithm
  • 5.Pedagogical implications and suggestions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (70)
References
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J. L., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., … Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language Is a Complex Adaptive System: Position Paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In J. Yoon & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 418–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: a false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): Available online at [URL]
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2024). The ditransitive construction and the double accusative construction as allostructions: Corpus-based analysis and pedagogical applications. Ampersand, 131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2017). The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: Evidence from that-clauses in Polish. Cognitive Science, 411, 354–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Milin, P. (2023). Ten lectures on language as cognition. A multi-method approach (Vol. 281). Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Romain, L., & Milin, P. (2023). From their point of view: The article category as a hierarchically structured referent tracking system. Linguistics, 61(4), 1027–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Testini, I., & Milin, P. (2024). On the nature and organistion of morphological categories: verbal aspect through the lens of associative learning. Morphology, 341, 243–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. In: Language, 67(3), 547–619. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar (Language Learning Monograph Series). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ez-Zizi, A., Divjak, D., & Milin, P. (2023). Error-correction mechanisms in language learning: Modeling individuals. Language Learning, Ahead of print. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. (2011). Idiosincrasy in verb valency pattern. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 331–346. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 651, 263–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. 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
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M. (2020). The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 31. Louvain La-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In S. Rice & J. Newman (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 73–90). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2006). Syntactic leaps or lexical creation? More on ‘creative syntax’. In S. T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–157). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herbst, T. (2011). The status of generalizations: valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 59(4), 347–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Is language a collostructicon? A proposal for looking at collocations, valency, argument structure and other constructions. In P. Cantos-Gómez & M. A. Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical Collocational Analysis: Advances and Applications (pp. 1–22). Cham: Springer Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Perek, F. (2015). Meaning change in a petri dish: constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistic Vanguard. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The Way Constructions Grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2008). Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di linguistica, 20(1), 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N., & Heylen, K. (2014). A radically data-driven Construction Grammar: Experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 17–46). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). The logic of the unified model. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Gentner, D. (1993). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 251, 431–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OED Online. (2018). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2003). Constructing semantic space models from parsed corpora. Proceedings of the 41st Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 128–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2010). The automatic identification of lexical variations between language varieties. Natural Language Engineering, 16(4), 469–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2014). Rethinking constructional polysemy: the case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. (pp. 61–85). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantics analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Distributional semantic models for english verbs and nouns. Available at: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Princeton University. (2010). About WordNet. Available at: [URL]
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning ll: Curent research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(1), 35–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romain, L., Ez-Zizi, A., Milin, P., & Divjak, D. (2022). What makes the past perfect and the future progressive? Experiential coordinates for a learnable, context-based model of tense and aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romain, L., Milin, P., & Divjak, D. (2024). Order effects in second language learning. Language Learning, Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sahlgren, M. (2008). The distributional hypothesis. Rivista di linguistica, 20(1), 33–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 613–620. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütze, H. (1992). Dimensions of meaning. In R. Werner (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1992 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (pp. 787–796). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tachihara, K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2024). Learning Unacceptability: Repeated Exposure to Acceptable Sentences Improves Adult Learners’ Recognition of Unacceptable Sentences. Language Learning, Advance online publication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turney, P. D., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 371, 141–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yi, E., Koenig, J.-P., & Roland, D. (2019). Semantic similarity to high-frequency verbs affects syntactic frame selection. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(3), 601–628. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). The Instructed Learning of Form-Function Mappings in the English Article System. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 99–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue