Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English

Eva Zehentner

doi:10.1515/cllt-2020-0074

Published by De Gruyter Mouton May 6, 2021

Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English

Eva Zehentner

From the journal Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0074

Showing a limited preview of this publication:

Abstract

This paper focuses on two main issues regarding syntactic alternations and their development over time. On the one hand, it discusses the diachronic implications of alternations as involving multiple (rather than binary) choices. On the other hand, it shows that while studies are typically interested in the emergence of alternation relationships, there are also cases of diachronic loss of such. This is illustrated by zooming in on the history of a particular set of ditransitive verbs, viz. dispossession verbs such as steal or rob, and their connection to the well-known English dative alternation. Based on a quantitative analysis of different dispossession-constructions in corpora of Middle, Early Modern and Late Modern English, I demonstrate that the network of dispossession constructions has changed considerably over time — from a complex interaction between three overlapping patterns to a clear differentiation of two non-alternating constructions.

Keywords: constructional network; dative alternation; dispossession verbs; history of English; prepositions

Corresponding author: Eva Zehentner, Department of English, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, E-mail: eva.zehentner@es.uzh.ch

Appendix

Table A1:

Contributions of categories (top) and specific values of the variables (bottom) to dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA for Middle English.

Dimension 1	R2	Dimension 2	R2
V_lemma	0.598	V_lemma	0.708
Preposition	0.466	V_origin	0.555
DEPR_pronominality	0.376	Object_order	0.544
Object_order	0.382	Voice	0.510
DEPR_concreteness	0.306	DEPR_animacy	0.155
DEPR_animacy	0.264	Preposition	0.170
Voice	0.221	DEPR_pronominality	0.086
Rel_length	0.201	TH_concreteness	0.067
V_origin	0.108	DEPR_concreteness	0.040
TH_definiteness	0.096	Rel_length	0.039
DEPR_definiteness	0.074	TH_animacy	0.023
TH_animacy	0.024	DEPR_definiteness	0.015

V_lemma=nim	0.734	V_lemma=ravish	2.007
Object_order=TH>DEPR	0.482	V_lemma=rob	1.113
V_lemma=take	0.459	Object_order=DEPR\|TH	0.843
CxG=PDC	0.433	V_origin=French	0.838
Voice=active	0.431	Voice=passive	0.632
V_origin=nonFrench	0.382	CxG=PTC	0.378
DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.330	Preposition=of	0.245
Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.323	DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.244
DEPR_concreteness=ambig	0.316	TH_concreteness=concrete	0.166
Preposition=Preposition_other	0.295	DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.134
DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.290	Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.119
Preposition=of	0.228	DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.097
DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.212	TH_animacy=anim	0.095
DEPR_definiteness=indef	0.185	DEPR_concreteness=ambig	0.087
TH_definiteness=indef	0.158	DEPR_definiteness=indef	0.081
TH_animacy=anim	0.099	V_lemma=steal	0.004
Object_order=DEPR>TH	0.090	CxG=PDC	−0.041
Rel_length=equalLength	−0.039	TH_concreteness=abstract	−0.067
V_lemma=reave	−0.076	DEPR_definiteness=def	−0.081
TH_animacy=inanim	−0.099	TH_animacy=inanim	−0.095
CxG=PTC	−0.152	TH_concreteness=ambig	−0.099
TH_definiteness=def	−0.158	Rel_length=longerTH	−0.125
DEPR_definiteness=def	−0.185	DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.134
V_lemma=benim	−0.194	DEPR_concreteness=concrete	−0.184
V_lemma=bereave	−0.207	Preposition=Preposition.NA	−0.206
CxG=DOC	−0.280	DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.244
Rel_length=longerTH	−0.284	CxG=DOC	−0.338
DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.290	Object_order=DEPR>TH	−0.509
DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.330	V_lemma=benim	−0.594
V_origin=French	−0.382	V_lemma=reave	−0.613
Voice=passive	−0.431	Voice=active	−0.632
V_lemma=rob	−0.493	V_origin=nonFrench	−0.838
Preposition=Preposition.NA	−0.517
DEPR_concreteness=concrete	−0.528
Object_order=DEPR\|TH	−0.572
V_lemma=ravish	−0.597

Table A2:

Contributions of categories (top) and specific values of the variables (bottom) to dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA for Early Modern English.

Dimension 1	R2	Dimension 2	R2
V_lemma	0.596	TH_concreteness	0.355
Object_order	0.433	DEPR_concreteness	0.301
DEPR_animacy	0.399	DEPR_pronominality	0.252
CxG	0.389	DEPR_animacy	0.247
Preposition	0.408	TH_pronominality	0.227
Rel_length	0.369	DEPR_definiteness	0.204
DEPR_concreteness	0.322	TH_animacy	0.190
TH_animacy	0.298	V_lemma	0.256
DEPR_pronominality	0.280	TH_definiteness	0.084
TH_pronominality	0.264	Object_order	0.083
TH_concreteness	0.232	Rel_length	0.082
TH_definiteness	0.025	Preposition	0.066
		CxG	0.045

V_lemma=withdraw	0.952	V_lemma=snatch	0.552
DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.499	V_lemma=bereave	0.513
CxG=PDC	0.485	TH_concreteness=abstract	0.361
Object_order=TH>DEPR	0.401	TH_pronominality=noun	0.246
DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.370	DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.233
TH_pronominality=pron	0.330	DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.233
TH_animacy=anim	0.318	DEPR_definiteness=indef	0.229
DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.305	DEPR_concreteness=ambig	0.216
Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.296	TH_animacy=inanim	0.203
TH_concreteness=concrete	0.288	DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.191
Preposition=from	0.142	Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.177
Rel_length=equalLength	0.140	Preposition=of	0.159
TH_definiteness=def	0.092	Object_order=DEPR>TH	0.141
TH_definiteness=indef	−0.092	TH_definiteness=indef	0.136
DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.305	CxG=PTC	0.132
TH_concreteness=abstract	−0.317	V_lemma=withdraw	0.017
TH_animacy=inanim	−0.318	Preposition=from	−0.084
TH_pronominality=noun	−0.330	CxG=PDC	−0.132
DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.370	TH_definiteness=def	−0.136
Object_order=DEPR>TH	−0.401	Object_order=TH>DEPR	−0.141
Rel_length=longerTH	−0.436	Rel_length=equalLength	−0.157
DEPR_concreteness=concrete	−0.440	TH_animacy=anim	−0.203
CxG=PTC	−0.485	DEPR_definiteness=def	−0.229
V_lemma=bereave	−0.522	DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.233
Preposition=of	−0.598	DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.233
V_lemma=rob	−0.686	TH_pronominality=pron	−0.246
V_lemma=deprive	−0.688	TH_concreteness=ambig	−0.389
		V_lemma=take	−0.399
		DEPR_concreteness=concrete	−0.407

Table A3:

Contributions of categories (top) and specific values of the variables (bottom) to dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA for Late Modern English.

Dimension 1	R2	Dimension 2	R2
V_lemma	0.819	V_lemma	0.548
Preposition	0.732	TH_concreteness	0.415
CxG	0.718	DEPR_pronominality	0.242
Object_order	0.636	DEPR_definiteness	0.238
Rel_length	0.506	Object_order	0.189
DEPR_animacy	0.457	DEPR_concreteness	0.164
DEPR_pronominality	0.345	Rel_length	0.152
TH_animacy	0.238	TH_pronominality	0.110
TH_pronominality	0.204	Preposition	0.108
DEPR_concreteness	0.199	CxG	0.098
TH_concreteness	0.186	DEPR_animacy	0.059
DEPR_definiteness	0.065
TH_definiteness	0.063

V_lemma=withdraw	0.872	V_lemma=steal	0.600
Object_order=TH>DEPR	0.622	DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.468
CxG=PDC	0.535	DEPR_definiteness=indef	0.331
Preposition=from	0.534	TH_concreteness=abstract	0.327
Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.524	Object_order=other	0.260
TH_animacy=anim	0.487	V_lemma=withdraw	0.237
DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.436	V_lemma=deprive	0.217
DEPR_concreteness=abstract	0.422	DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.214
DEPR_pronominality=noun	0.360	Rel_length=longerDEPR	0.197
TH_concreteness=concrete	0.348	TH_pronominality=noun	0.165
TH_pronominality=pron	0.316	Preposition=of	0.146
DEPR_definiteness=indef	0.243	CxG=PTC	0.140
V_lemma=take	0.230	DEPR_animacy=inanim	0.112
TH_definiteness=def	0.169	DEPR_concreteness=concrete	0.037
TH_definiteness=indef	−0.169	DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.112
Object_order=other	−0.175	CxG=PDC	−0.140
TH_concreteness=abstract	−0.207	Preposition=from	−0.146
DEPR_definiteness=def	−0.243	TH_pronominality=pron	−0.165
DEPR_concreteness=concrete	−0.298	DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.214
TH_pronominality=noun	−0.316	Object_order=TH>DEPR	−0.260
DEPR_pronominality=pron	−0.360	Rel_length=equal	−0.272
DEPR_animacy=anim	−0.436	DEPR_definiteness=def	−0.331
Object_order=DEPR>TH	−0.447	V_lemma=take	−0.386
TH_animacy=inanim	−0.487	TH_concreteness=ambig	−0.499
Rel_length=longerTH	−0.530
Preposition=of	−0.534
CxG=PTC	−0.535
V_lemma=deprive	−0.712
V_lemma=rob	−0.800

Table A4:

Logistic regression analysis of dimensions 1 and 2 of the MCA for Middle English/Early Modern English/Late Modern English.

Middle English
Call: lrm(formula = deprME$CxG ∼ dim1 + dim2)
		Model likelihood ratio test		Discrimination indexes		Rank discrim. indexes
Obs	277	LR chi2	142.86	R2	0.486	C	0.881
DOC	95	d.f.	2	g	2.098	Dxy	0.761
PDC	163	Pr(>chi2)	<0.0001	gr	8.146	Gamma	0.762
PTC	19			gp	0.32	tau-a	0.408
max\|deriv\|7.00E-07				Brier	0.087

	Coef	S.E.	Wald Z	Pr(>\|Z\|)

y>=PDC	1.0495	0.1752	5.99	<0.0001
y>=PTC	−3.9354	0.3492	−11.27	<0.0001
dim1	2.8382	0.3514	8.08	<0.0001
dim2	2.7477	0.37	7.43	<0.0001

Early Modern English
Call: lrm(formula = deprEME$CxG ∼ dim1 + dim2)
		Model likelihood ratio test		Discrimination indexes		Rank discrim. indexes
Obs	156	LR chi2	97.99	R2	0.823	C	0.982
PDC	133	d.f.	2	g	6.397	Dxy	0.965
PTC	23	Pr(>chi2)	<0.0001	gr	600.228	gamma	0.965
max\|deriv\|8.00E-06				gp	0.245	tau-a	0.244
				Brier	0.031

	Coef	S.E.	Wald Z	Pr(>\|Z\|)

Intercept	−6.2917	1.41	−4.46	<0.0001
dim1	−9.9596	2.4676	−4.04	<0.0001
dim2	2.4829	1.1603	2.14	0.0324

Late Modern English
Call: lrm(formula = deprLME$CxG ∼ dim1)
		Model likelihood ratio test		Discrimination indexes		Rank discrim. indexes
Obs	87	LR chi2	104.58	R2	0.956	C	0.997
PDC	55	d.f.	1	g	12.37	Dxy	0.993
PTC	32	Pr(>chi2)	<0.0001	gr	235,610.687	gamma	0.993
max\|deriv\|3.00E-07				gp	0.468	tau-a	0.467
				Brier	0.015

	Coef	S.E.	Wald Z	Pr(>\|Z\|)

Intercept	−4.7327	2.1919	−2.16	0.0308
dim1	−17.5532	7.1254	−2.46	0.0138

References

Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780198240969.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001.Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Kristian Kristoffersen & Andreas Sveen. 2011. West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V–REFL–NP construction. Linguistics 49(1). 53–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.002.Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans. 2014. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Bosworth-Toller’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary Online (Bosworth-Toller). 2019. Maint. by Ondrej Tichy & Martin Rocek. www.bosworthtoller.com (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. https://web.stanford.edu/∼bresnan/qs-submit.pdf (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 2006, 1–28.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark (COCA). 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (accessed 26 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2008. Accounting for ditransitives with envy and forgive. Functions of Language 15. 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15.2.02col.Search in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2009. ‘Caused motion’? The semantics of the English to-dative and the Dutch aan-dative. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 5–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.002.Search in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy & Bernard De Clerck. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus–Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honour of Guenter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015a. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(2). 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0011.Search in Google Scholar

De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015b. The Old English to-dative construction. English Language and Linguistics 19(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000276.Search in Google Scholar

Delorge, Martine, Koen Plevoets & Timothy Colleman. 2014. Competing ‘transfer’ constructions in Dutch: The case of ont-verbs. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 39–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.02del (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel van Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-015 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Dux, Ryan. 2018. Frames, verbs, and constructions: German constructions with verbs of stealing. In Hans Boas & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German, 367–405. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-010 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Dux, Ryan. 2020. Frame-constructional verb classes: Change and theft verbs in English and German. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.28 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 307–341. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.12gly (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4). 327–356. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022.Search in Google Scholar

Greenacre, Michael. 2017. Correspondence analysis in practice, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431900039X.Search in Google Scholar

Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. National variation in the use of er “there”: Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In Gitte Kristiansen & René Dirven (eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems, 153–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.2.153.Search in Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank. 2020. rms: Regression modeling strategies. Version 6.0-1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rms/index.html.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach. 2020. Disentangling modal meanings with distributional semantics. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. fqaa014. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqaa014 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Florent Perek. 2015. Meaning change in a petri dish: Constructions, semantic vector spaces, and motion charts. Linguistics Vanguard 1. 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Husson, Francois, Sebastien Lê & Jérôme Pagès. 2017. Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. http://factominer.free.fr/book/ (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Jeppson, Haley, Heike Hofmann, Di Cook & Hadley Wickham. 2018. ggmosaic: Mosaic plots in the ‘ggplot2’ framework. http://github.com/haleyjeppson/ggmosaic (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn–Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist–corpora/PPCME2–RELEASE–3/index.html (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-3/index.html (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Ariel Diertani. 2016. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE2-RELEASE-1/index.html (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Lê, Sebastien, Julie Josse & Francois Husson. 2008. FactoMineR: A package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Levy, Roger & Galen Andrew. 2006. Tregex and Tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L06-1311/ (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions, 1–64. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220377.1 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In David Lightfoot (ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change, 107–123. Oxford: OUP. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0006 (accessed 08 April 2021).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199250691.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Meyer, David, Achim Zeileis & Kurt Hornik. 2020. vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4-8. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/index.html (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Middle English Dictionary . 2000–2018. In Frances McSparran, et al.. (eds.), Online edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. www.quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Stefan & Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2). 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Nenadic, Oleg & Michael Greenacre. 2007. Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package. Journal of Statistical Software 20(3). 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i03.Search in Google Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED) . 2021. Oxford: OUP. www.oed.com (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Percillier, Michael. 2016. Verb lemmatization and semantic verb classes in a Middle English corpus. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016), 209–214. Bochum: Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte. https://www.linguistics.rub.de/konvens16/pub/26_konvensproc.pdf (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Percillier, Michael. 2018. A toolkit for lemmatising, analysing, and visualising Middle English data. In Andrew Frank, Christine Ivanovic, Francesco Mambrini, Marco Passarotti & Caroline Sporleder (eds.), Proceedings of the second workshop on corpus-based research in the humanities CRH-2, 153–160. Vienna: Gerastree Proceedings. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/subsites/academiaecorpora/PDF/CRH2.pdf (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Percillier, Michael. 2020. Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family?: Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 214–242. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Percillier, Michael & Carola Trips. 2020. Lemmatising verbs in Middle English corpora: The benefit of enriching the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (PPCME2), the Parsed Corpus of Middle English Poetry (PCMEP), and A Parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English (PLAEME). In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, 7170–7178. Marseille: European Language Resources Association. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.886.pdf (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2012. Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics 23(3). 601–635. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus–based perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. How, why and where does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. Dissertation, University of Leuven.Search in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/ (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. Betrachtungen zum Auf- und Abstieg einiger praepositionaler Konstruktionen im Englischen. NOWELE 26. 67–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.26.05roh.Search in Google Scholar

Silvennoinen, Olli. 2018. Constructional schemas in variation: Modelling contrastive negation. Constructions and Frames 10(1). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00009.sil.Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Klaus Hoffmann. 2020. Constructional competition and network reconfiguration: Investigating sum(e) in Old, Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 25(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431900039X.Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and networks: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2011. Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus. In Mario Brdar, Stefan Gries & Milena Žic Fuchs (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion, 257–290. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.16ste (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, Sali Tagliamonte & Simon Todd. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa 2(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.310.Search in Google Scholar

Torrent, Tiago. 2015. On the relation between inheritance and change: The construction network reconfiguration hypothesis. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Spike Gildea, Elena Smirnova & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 173–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Thim, Stefan. 2012. Phrasal verbs: The English verb-particle construction and its history. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110257038 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth. 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Salvador Pons Bordería & Óscar Loureda (eds.), Beyond grammaticalization and discourse markers: New issues in the study of language change, 17–50. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004375420_003 (accessed 26 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Wickham, Harley. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer. ggplot2.tidyverse.org (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English. Diachronica 30(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.Search in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2017. Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22(1). 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000447.Search in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633856 (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva & Elizabeth Traugott. 2020. Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and links in the network: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar, 168–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh (accessed 08 April 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-10-26

Accepted: 2021-04-09

Published Online: 2021-05-06

Alternations emerge and disappear: the network of dispossession constructions in the history of English

Abstract

References

Journal and Issue

Articles in the same Issue