Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis

References

Andrews, Mark, Gabriella Vigliocco & David P. Vinson. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review 116(3). 463–498.10.1037/a0016261Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Gert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Gert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, Vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213881.2.899Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–844.10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801Search in Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.8Search in Google Scholar

Bergs, Alex & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211757Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82(2). 323–355.10.1353/lan.2006.0081Search in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 387–410.10.1515/zaa-2011-0408Search 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). 183–209.10.1515/cogl.2011.008Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2012. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word corpus of historical American English. Corpora 7(2). 121–157.10.3366/cor.2012.0024Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., Matthew O’Donnell & Ute Römer. 2014. Does language Zipf right along? Investigating robustness in the latent structures of usage and acquisition. In Jeffrey Connor-Linton & Luke W. Amoroso (eds.), Measured language: Quantitative studies of acquisition, assessment, processing and variation, 33–50. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10). 635–653.10.1002/lnco.362Search in Google Scholar

Evert, Stefan. 2005. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Stuttgart: Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart. urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-23714.Search in Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language 64(3). 501–53810.2307/414531Search in Google Scholar

Firth, John R. 1968 [1957]. A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–55. In Frank Palmer (ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59, 168–205. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2009. Construction grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 261–91.10.1075/cf.1.2.04friSearch in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A construction grammar approach to language change. In An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete & Kristin Davidse (eds.), Formal evidence in grammaticalization research, 191–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.94.07friSearch in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 419–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0023Search in Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.2.02friSearch in Google Scholar

Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.10.1515/LING.2006.003Search in Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3). 289–316.10.1515/cogl.2004.011Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2010. Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In Sally Rice & John Newman (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research, 73–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Felix, Roi Reichart & Anna Korhonen. 2014. SimLex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. URN: arXiv:1408.3456 <http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3456v1> (15 September 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna Robynson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 133–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110252903.133Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139004206Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hopSearch in Google Scholar

Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.10.2307/417472Search in Google Scholar

Kruskal, Joseph B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29(1). 1–27.10.1007/BF02289565Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Landauer, Thomas K., Peter W. Foltz & Darrell Laham. 1998. Introduction to Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes 25. 259–284.10.1080/01638539809545028Search in Google Scholar

Lenci, Alessandro. 2008. Distributional semantics in linguistic and cognitive research. Rivista di Linguistica 20(1). 1–31.Search in Google Scholar

Lund, Kevin, Curt Burgess & Ruth A. Atchley. 1995. Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. In Cognitive Science Proceedings (LEA), 660–665.Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22(3). 397–421.10.1017/S0954394510000165Search in Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202.10.1075/fol.14.2.04noeSearch in Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk. 2008. The nominative and infinitive in late modern English: A diachronic constructionist approach. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4). 314–340.10.1177/0075424208321750Search in Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk & Timothy Colleman. 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). 157–182.10.1075/bct.43.02noeSearch in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2016. Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics 54(1). 149–188.10.1515/ling-2015-0043Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent & Maarten Lemmens. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5. http://cognitextes.revues.org/33110.4000/cognitextes.331Search in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar

Römer, Ute, Matthew B. O’Donnell & Nick C. Ellis. 2015. Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions: Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge. In Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles & Suganthi John (eds.), Corpora, grammar and discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston, 43–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.73.03romSearch in Google Scholar

Suttle, Laura & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49(6). 1237–1269.10.1515/ling.2011.035Search in Google Scholar

Szczesniak, Konrad. 2013. You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics 24(1). 159–194.10.1515/cog-2013-0006Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756393.ch20Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In Regine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110205398.3.219Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme 2010. Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization in English. In Katharine Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues, 51–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.119.05troSearch in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions, and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 167–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.130.07troSearch in Google Scholar

Turney, Peter & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37. 141–188.10.1613/jair.2934Search in Google Scholar

Van der Maaten, Laurens & Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9. 2579–2605.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, George K. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Search in Google Scholar