Skip to main content
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Disentangling constructional networks: integrating taxonomic effects into the description of grammatical alternations

  • and EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 9, 2024
Linguistics Vanguard
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 10 Issue s1

Abstract

This study considers an approach to alternations in which constructions are understood as non-binary choices between non-discrete usage patterns. To these ends, it seeks to develop usage-based methods for the identification and description of constructions without presupposing their level of formal granularity. Instead of deciding a priori what level of granularity is best for making generalizations about grammatical structure, the study aims to integrate the dimension of taxonomic variation into the analysis by treating constructions as combinatory emergent patterns, rather than predetermined discrete objects. Using the behavioural profile approach, we examine a 12-way lexico-constructional choice in Polish arising from the combinatory possibilities of three paradigmatic relations: grammatical aspect (perfective vs. imperfective); grammatical prefix (wy-, za-, na-); and predicate choice from the semantic frame of “stuff-fill” (-pchać/-pychać ‘push’, -pełnić/-pełniać ‘fill’). We analyse the combinations in a sample of 765 examples extracted from the National Corpus of Polish. The results reveal patterns in the use of the prefix-aspect-verb composites, interpretable as speaker choice, and show how those combinatory patterns can be accounted for without the need for positing discrete alternations. Furthermore, although only exploratory, such results call into question the descriptive validity of the traditional grammatical alternation.

Keywords: behavioural profile approach; stuff-fill verbs; grammatical constructions; Polish; verbal prefixes
Corresponding author: Dylan Glynn, Paris 8 University Vincennes - Saint-Denis, Saint-Denis, France; and Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Any remaining shortcomings are our own.

References

Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1996. A study of Polish perfectivizing prefixes. In Martin Putz & René Dirven (eds.), Construal of space in language and thought, 467–490. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Dirven, René, Louis Goossens, Yvan Putsey & Emma Vorlat. 1982. The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by SPEAK, TALK, SAY and TELL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.iii.6Search in Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1). 23–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2006.002.Search in Google Scholar

Fabiszak, Małgorzata, Anna Hebda, Iwona Kokorniak & Karolina Krawczak. 2014. The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 223–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.09fabSearch in Google Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Peter Bakema. 1994. Structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873061Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2004. Constructions at the crossroads: The place of construction grammar between field and frame. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2. 197–233. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.2.07gly.Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2007. Mapping meaning: Toward a usage-based methodology in cognitive semantics. Leuven: Leuven University doctoral thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 77–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.08glySearch in Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.17glySearch in Google Scholar

Greenacre, Michael. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.10.1201/9781420011234Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.07griSearch in Google Scholar

Janda, Laura A. 1986. A semantic analysis of the Russian verbal prefixes za-, pere-, do-, and ot-. Munich: Sagner.10.3726/b13088Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

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

Lewandowski, Wojciech. 2016. Verbal prefixation, construction grammar, and semantic compatibility: Evidence from the locative alternation in Polish. Folia Linguistica 50(1). 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0006.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

Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. Where, how and why does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. Leuven: Leuven University doctoral thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers. 2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32. 487–528. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039.Search in Google Scholar

Przepiórkowski, Adam, Mirosław Bańko, Rafał L. Górski & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), 2012. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego [The National Corpus of Polish]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Search in Google Scholar

Romain, Laurence. 2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33. 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0021.Search in Google Scholar

Sokolova, Svetlana. 2012. Asymmetries in linguistic construal: Russian prefixes and the locative alternation. Tromsø: University of Tromsø doctoral thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-03-02
Accepted: 2023-04-03
Published Online: 2024-01-09

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Introduction: what are alternations and how should we study them?
  4. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure
  5. Alternations (at) that time: NP versus PP time adjuncts in the history of English
  6. Disentangling constructional networks: integrating taxonomic effects into the description of grammatical alternations
  7. The morphosyntactic alternation between exterior locative case affixes and postpositions in Estonian
  8. In alternations, not all semantic motivation comes from semantic contrast
  9. Null and overt se constructions in Brazilian Portuguese and the network of se constructions
  10. Evaluating the importance of construal for choosing between alternating forms: the case of Spanish change-of-state verbs hacerse and volverse
  11. Differential indexing in Kamang: a viewpoint alternation
  12. Plains Cree Order as alternation
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0035
Keywords for this article
behavioural profile approach; stuff-fill verbs; grammatical constructions; Polish; verbal prefixes

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Introduction: what are alternations and how should we study them?
  4. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure
  5. Alternations (at) that time: NP versus PP time adjuncts in the history of English
  6. Disentangling constructional networks: integrating taxonomic effects into the description of grammatical alternations
  7. The morphosyntactic alternation between exterior locative case affixes and postpositions in Estonian
  8. In alternations, not all semantic motivation comes from semantic contrast
  9. Null and overt se constructions in Brazilian Portuguese and the network of se constructions
  10. Evaluating the importance of construal for choosing between alternating forms: the case of Spanish change-of-state verbs hacerse and volverse
  11. Differential indexing in Kamang: a viewpoint alternation
  12. Plains Cree Order as alternation
Downloaded on 17.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0035/html
Scroll to top button