Abstract
Depending on the theory of language employed, the paradigmatic and lexical variation associated with a given composite form-meaning pair is treated in different ways. First, variation can be treated as independent of the constructional semantics, an approach typical of modular theories. Second, paradigmatic variation can be considered indicative of constructional semantics; its variation constituting networks of closely related families of constructions. This is a common approach in construction grammar. Third, there exists a trend in cognitive linguistics and construction grammar to treat grammatical constructions as non-discrete emergent clusters of many-to-many form-meaning mappings. This study explores the possibility of extending current methods for quantitatively modelling construction grammar to an approach that does not assume discrete grammatical constructions. The speaker choice examined consists of the English future constructions will and BE going to and their use in contemporary informal British English. The constructions are examined with the behavioural profile approach. Three different regression modelling methods are applied to the grammatical alternations, each operationalizing one of the theoretical assumptions. While the results show that all three approaches are feasible and comparable in predictive accuracy, model interpretation becomes increasingly difficult with added complexity.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the editors of this volume as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this paper. Remaining shortcomings are, of course, our own responsibility.
References
Agresti, Alan. 2002. Categorical data analysis, 2nd edn. Hoboken: Wiley.10.1002/0471249688Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: KNAW.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions 1. 1–28.Search in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2015. Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 650–668. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-033Search in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2017. Ten lectures on grammar in the mind. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004336827Search in Google Scholar
Denis, Derek & Sali Tagliamonte. 2017. The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22. 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674316000551.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
Elff, Martin. 2020. mclogit: Multinomial logit models, with or without random effects or overdispersion, version 0.8.6.4 [R package]. Available at: http://mclogit.elff.eu.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. Berkeley Linguistic Society 14. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 2008. Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In Elisenda Bernal & Janet DeCesaris (eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, 49–68. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Search in Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2020. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod + adv collocations. English Language and Linguistics 25. 743–765. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674320000301.Search 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. 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, 77–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.24.08glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2010. Testing the hypothesis; Objectivity and verification in usage-based cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Kirsten Fischer (eds.), Quantitative cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 307–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. The many uses of run: Corpus methods and socio-cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 117–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.05glySearch in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2015. Semasiology and onomasiology: Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 47–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110435597-004Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2022. Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. In Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Marcin Grygiel (eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from cognitive linguistics, 245–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.73.08glySearch 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. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study on particle placement. London: Continuum.Search 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
Gries, Stefan Th. & Naoki Otani. 2010. Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. ICAME Journal 34. 121–150.Search in Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan. 2000. De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats: Sociolectische, functionele en psycholinguistische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Leuven: Leuven University doctoral thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Geeraerts & Dirk Speelman. 2009. A case for cognitive corpus linguistics. In Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson & Michael J. Spivey (eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics, 49–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank. 2015. Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7Search in Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 241–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197549.241Search in Google Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Stanley Lemeshow & Rodney X. Sturdivant. 2013. Applied logistic regression, 3rd edn. New York: Wiley.10.1002/9781118548387Search in Google Scholar
Krawczak, Karolina. 2021. The role of verb polysemy in constructional profiling: A cross-linguistic study of give in the dative alternation. In Myriam Bouveret (ed.), Give constructions across languages, 75–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.29.03kraSearch in Google Scholar
Krawczak, Karolina, Małgorzata Fabiszak & Martin Hilpert. 2016. A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia Linguistica 50. 475–506. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0018.Search in Google Scholar
Krawczak, Karolina & Dylan Glynn. 2015. Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13. 353–382. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.04kra.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lorentz, David. 2013. On-going change in English modality: Emancipation through frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03379871.Search in Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Olaf. Forthcoming. L’expression verbale du futur en français, espagnol, anglais et norvégien: Une étude multifactorielle et contrastive. Paris: University of Paris 8, Vincennes – St. Denis doctoral thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Olaf & Stefan Hartmann. 2022. Competing future constructions and the complexity principle: A contrastive outlook. In Susanne Flach & Martin Hilpert (eds.), Broadening the spectrum of corpus linguistics: New approaches to variability and change, 8–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.105.01mikSearch in Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk. 2020. What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34(1). 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij.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(3). 487–528. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 587–534. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.18speSearch in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk & Dylan Glynn. 2012. LiveJournal corpus of British and American online personal diaries. Leuven: University of Leuven. Available at: https://transcrit.univ-paris8.fr/Corpora.Search in Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2018. Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-69830-4Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31. 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257830.Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226461.139Search in Google Scholar
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
