Corpus linguistics meets historical linguistics and construction grammar: how far have we come, and where do we go from here?

References

Anshen, Frank & Mark Aronoff. 1999. Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68(1–2). 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1999.2068.Search in Google Scholar

Anthonissen, Lynn. 2019. Constructional change across the lifespan: The nominative and infinitive in early modern writers. In Kristin Bech & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds.), Grammar – discourse – context: Grammar and usage in language variation and change, 125–156. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110682564-005Search 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

Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Spike Gildea & Lotte Sommerer (eds.). 2015. Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.18Search in Google Scholar

Baroni, Marco, Georgiana Dinu & Germán Kruszewski. 2014. Don’t count, predict! A systematic comparison of context-counting vs. context-predicting semantic vectors. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers), 238–247. Baltimore, Maryland: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/P14-1023Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519871Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Edward Finegan & Dwight Atkinson. 1994. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring a representative corpus of historical English Registers. In Udo Fries, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora, 1–13. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004652804_003Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582Search in Google Scholar

Bouso Rivas, Tamara. 2022. The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelanea: A Journal of English and American Studies 65. 13–36. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20226826.Search in Google Scholar

Budts, Sara. 2020. A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18(2). 337–364, https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0080.Search in Google Scholar

Cedergren, Henrietta & David Sankoff. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50(2). 333–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/412441.Search in Google Scholar

Coussé, Evie. 2014. Lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch: A constructionist prototype account. Diachronica 31(2). 159–191. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.2.01cou.Search in Google Scholar

Davidse, Kristin & Hendrik De Smet. 2020. Diachronic corpora. In Magali Paquot & Stefan Th. Gries (eds.), A practical Handbook of corpus linguistics, 211–233. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_10Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coha.Search in Google Scholar

Desagulier, Guillaume. 2022. Changes in the midst of a construction network: A diachronic construction grammar approach to complex prepositions denoting internal location. Cognitive Linguistics 33(2). 339–386. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0128.Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2005. A corpus of late modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29. 69–82.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2019. The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108671040Search in Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2004. On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: The rise and development of English verbal gerunds. Diachronica 21(1). 5–55. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21.1.03fan.Search in Google Scholar

Fanego, Teresa. 2015. Multiple sources in language change: The role of free adjuncts and absolutes in the formation of English ACC-ing gerundives. In Mikko Höglund, Rickman Paul, Juhani Rudanko & Jukka Havu (eds.), Perspectives on complementation: Structure, variation and boundaries, 179–205. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137450067_10Search in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren. 2020. What about grammar? Using BERT embeddings to explore functional-semantic shifts of semi-lexical and grammatical constructions. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/138612.Search in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren, Enrique Manjavacas & Sara Budts. 2022. Exploring morphosyntactic variation and change with distributional semantic models. Journal of Historical Syntax 6. 13–18. https://doi.org/10.18148/HS/2022.V7I13-18.132.Search in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren & Andrea Nini. 2020. Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2). 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0040.Search in Google Scholar

Garachana, Mar & María Sol Sansiñena. 2023. Combinatorial productivity of Spanish verbal periphrases as an indicator of their degree of grammaticalization. Languages 8(187). 1–25.10.3390/languages8030187Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 1999. Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics 10(2). 105–145.10.1515/cogl.1999.005Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2023. Overhauling collostructional analysis: Towards more descriptive simplicity and more explanatory adequacy. Cognitive Semantics 9(3). 351–386. https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10056.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3366/e1749503208000075.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14/3. 293–320.10.1017/S1360674310000092Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri.Search in Google Scholar

Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2002. Regressing on ’er’. Statistical analysis of texts and language variation. In Anne Morin & Pascale Sébillot (eds.), 6ièmes Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles – 6th international conference on textual data statistical analysis, 335–346. Rennes: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique.Search in Google Scholar

Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec & Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 1489–1501.10.18653/v1/P16-1141Search in Google Scholar

Hartmann, Stefan. 2016. Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110471809Search in Google Scholar

Herbst, Thomas & Judith Huber. 2022. Diachronic construction grammar – introductory remarks to this special issue. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70(3). 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2022-2070.Search in Google Scholar

Heylen, Kris, Thomas Wielfaert, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua 157. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2006.012.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions. A usage-based Approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.7Search in Google Scholar

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

Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2021. Ten lectures on diachronic construction grammar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004446793Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & David Correia Saavedra. 2020. Using token-based semantic vector spaces for corpus-linguistic analyses: From practical applications to tests of theoretical claims. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(2). 393–424.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach. 2022. A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Marcin Grygiel (eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.73.09hilSearch in Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3). 437–474. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674307002341.Search in Google Scholar

Höder, Steffen. 2010. Sprachausbau im Sprachkontakt. Syntaktischer Wandel im Altschwedischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2020. Construction grammar and creativity: Evolution, psychology, and cognitive science. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1). 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2018.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas. 2022. Construction grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale. 2022. On multiple paths and change in the language network. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70(3). 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2022-2071.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar

Huber, Magnus, Magnus Nissel & Puga Karin. 2016. Old bailey corpus 2.0. Available at: hdl:11858/00-246C-0000-0023-8CFB-2.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.4Search in Google Scholar

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

Janda, Laura A. 2013. Cognitive linguistics – the quantitative turn: The essential reader. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110335255Search in Google Scholar

Jenset, Gard B. 2013. Mapping meaning with distributional methods: A diachronic corpus-based study of existential there. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(2). 272–306. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.3.2.04jen.Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd. 2021. Reflecting on the quantitative turn in linguistics. Linguistics 59(5). 1207–1226. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0046.Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony & Taylor Ann. 2000. Penn-Helsinki Parsed corpus of middle English (PPCME2), 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/ppche/ppche-release-2016/PPCME2-RELEASE-4.Search in Google Scholar

Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of early modern English. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980Search in Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja. 1991. Manual to the diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English texts: Coding Conventions and Lists of Source texts, 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Brian Francis & Xunfeng Xu. 1994. The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories. In Catherine Fuchs & Bernard Victorri (eds.), Continuity in linguistic semantics, 57–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lis.19.07leeSearch in Google Scholar

Li, Yi, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Weiwei Zhang. 2023. Beyond dynasties and binary alternations: A diachronic corpus study of four-way variability in Chinese theme-recipient constructions. Folia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2023-2026.Search in Google Scholar

Lindquist, Hans & Christian Mair (eds.). 2004. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.13Search in Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in late modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1). 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674302001065.Search in Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2011. Grammaticalization and corpus linguistics. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of grammaticalization, 239–250. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0019Search in Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony, Vaclav Brezina & Helen Baker. 2019. Usage fluctuation analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(4). 413–444. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18096.mce.Search in Google Scholar

Mitra, Sunny, Ritwik Mitra, Martin Riedl, Chris Biemann, Animesh Mukherjee & Pawan Goyal. 2014. That’s sick dude!: Automatic identification of word sense change across different timescales. Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: Long papers), 1020–1029. Association for Computational Linguistics: Baltimore, Maryland.10.3115/v1/P14-1096Search in Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.2.04noe.Search in Google Scholar

Noël, Dirk & Timothy Colleman. 2021. Diachronic construction grammar. In Wen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 662–675. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351034708-44Search in Google Scholar

Nurmi, Arja, Terrtu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala & Minna Palander-Collin. 2006. Parsed corpus of early English correspondence (PCEEC). In Ann Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Terrtu Nevalainen (Annotated). Oxford: Oxford Text Archive.Search in Google Scholar

Peirsman, Yves, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Size matters: Tight and loose context definitions in English word space models. In Marco Baroni, Stefan Evert & Alessandro Lenci (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Distributional Lexical Semantics. Bridging the gap between semantic theory and computational simulations, 34–41. Hamburg: ESSLLI.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

Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 65–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014.Search in Google Scholar

Petré, Peter, Anthonissen Lynn, Sara Budts, Enrique Manjavacas, Emma-Louise Silva, William Standing & Odile A.O. Strik. 2019. Early modern multiloquent authors (EMMA): Designing a large-scale corpus of individuals’ languages. ICAME Journal 43. 83–122. https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2019-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies. Constructions and Frames 10(2). 269–305. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij.Search in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2). 543–581. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020.Search in Google Scholar

Sagi, Eyal, Stefan Kaufmann & Brady Clark. 2011. Tracing semantic change with latent semantic analysis. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 161–183. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110252903.161Search in Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization and entrecnhment.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Schoonjans, Steven. 2014. Is gesture subject to grammaticalization? Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 8. 30–43.Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Klaus Hofmann. 2021. 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 in diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27Search in Google Scholar

Speelman, Dirk, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Geeraerts. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities 37. 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025019216574.10.1023/A:1025019216574Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 2002. Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2). 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.7.2.04stu.Search in Google Scholar

Tabor, Whitney. 1995. Lexical change as nonlinear interpolation. In Johanna D. Moore & Jill Fain Lehman (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th cognitive science conference, 242–247. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Torrent, Tiago. 2015. On the relation between inheritance and change: The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Spike Gildea & Lotte Sommerer (eds.), Diachronic construction grammar, 175–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2020. Expressions of stance-to-text: Discourse management markers as stance markers. Language Sciences 82. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101329.Search 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. 2012. Theory and data in diachronic Construction Grammar: The case of the what with construction. Studies in Language 36(3). 576–602. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.05tro.Search in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. Studies in Language 37(3). 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.02tro.Search in Google Scholar

Tummers, José, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2004. Quantifying semantic effects. The impact of lexical collocations on the inflectional variation of Dutch attributive adjectives. In Gérald Purnelle, Cédrick Fairon & Anne Dister (eds.), Le poids des mots. Actes des 7es Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles 1079-1088. Louvain la Neuve. Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Search in Google Scholar

Van De Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet, & Lobke Ghesquière (eds.). 2015. On multiple source constructions and language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.79.01intSearch in Google Scholar

Verhagen, Arie. 2002. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4). 403–439.10.1515/cogl.2002.024Search in Google Scholar

Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4/2. 253–290. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2008.011.Search in Google Scholar

Winter, Bodo & Martijn Wieling. 2016. How to analyze linguistic change using mixed models, Growth Curve analysis and generalized additive modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 1/1. 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzv003.Search in Google Scholar

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

Wulff, Stefanie, Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg & Siemund Peter (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 265–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.136.17wulSearch in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2024. Alternations (at) that time: NP versus PP time adjuncts in the history of English. Linguistic Vanguard. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0054.Search in Google Scholar