Towards a taxonomy of horizontal relations - Freek Van de Velde (KU Leuven) Charlotte Maekelberghe (KU Leuven) Lauren Fonteyn (Leiden University) ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Towards a taxonomy of horizontal relations
Freek Van de Velde (KU Leuven)
Charlotte Maekelberghe (KU Leuven)
Lauren Fonteyn (Leiden University)Introduction • Constructions: defined as form-function pairings • Naïve view: this pairing should be fixed • Homonymy (polysemy) and synonymy are avoided (Haiman 1980; McMahon 1994: 85) • However: in reality isomorphism is constantly violated...
Violations of isomorphism • Similarity in form begets similarity in function and vice versa. (E.g. sound symbolism: crazy, cringe, crappy -> chronic). Forms with partially overlapping functions may attract each other leading to full overlap in functions (De Smet et al. 2018). • Superficial (i.e. etymologically unwarranted) similarity may affect the formal realization of neighbouring constructions (Pijpops & Van de Velde 2016, 2018, Pijpops et al. 2018) and may lead to diachronic merger of distinct lineages (Van de Velde & Van der Horst 2013; Van de Velde et al. 2013) • Constructions entertain horizontal relations of opposition and attraction. No man construction is an island.
Degeneracy
• Not: the ordinary meaning ('deterioration')
• But: the technical meaning from evolutionary biology: "the ability of elements that are
structurally different to perform the same function or yield the same output" (Edelman & Gally
2001: 13763)
• Typically, structurally different elements simultaneously involved in other functions as well.FunctionA
Form1
Function A: semantic roles Form 1: caseshorizontal relations
FunctionAiii
FunctionAii
FunctionAi
Form1iii
Form1ii
Form1i
Function A: semantic roles Form 1: cases
FunctionAi: agent Form1i: nominative
FunctionAii: patient Form1ii: accusative
FunctionAiii: recipient Form1iii: dative
... ...horizontal relations
FunctionAiii
FunctionAii
FunctionAi
Form1iii Form2iii
Form1ii Form2ii
Form1i Form2i
Function A: semantic roles Form 1: cases
FunctionAi: agent Form1i: nominative
FunctionAii: patient Form1ii: accusative
FunctionAiii: recipient Form1iii: dative
... ...horizontal relations
FunctionAiii
FunctionAii
FunctionAi
Form1iii Form2iii
Form1ii Form2ii
Form1i Form2i
Function A: semantic roles Form 1: cases Form 2: word order
FunctionAi: agent Form1i: nominative Form1i: preverbal
FunctionAii: patient Form1ii: accusative Form1ii: postverbal-2
FunctionAiii: recipient Form1iii: dative Form1iii: postverbal-1
... ... ...horizontal relations Synonymy
FunctionAiii
FunctionAii
FunctionAi
Form1iii Form2iii
Form1ii Form2ii
Form1i Form2i
Function A: semantic roles Form 1: cases Form 2: word order
FunctionAi: agent Form1i: nominative Form1i: preverbal
FunctionAii: patient Form1ii: accusative Form1ii: postverbal-2
FunctionAiii: recipient Form1iii: dative Form1iii: postverbal-1
... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ...
FunctionA FunctionA FunctionA FunctionB FunctionA FunctionB
... ... ... ... ... ...
Form1 Form1 Form2 Form1 Form2 Form1
Isomorphy Redundancy Pleiotropy Degeneracy
(1 to 1) (synonymy) (homonymy) (many to many)Degeneracy in language
• Language is a complex adaptive system
• Complex adaptive systems display degeneracy
• Languages display degeneracy
• Van de Velde (2014); Zehentner (2021); Maekelberghe (forthc.): morphosyntax
• Winter (2014): phonologyDegeneracy in language
• Syntagmatic degeneracy
• Cf. multiple exponence (Harris 2017)
• Expression of past time reference both by a prefixed augment e- and a suffixed sigmatic marker -s- in
Ancient Greek and Old Indic aorists (e.g. Ancient Greek é-lu-s-a ‘I unbound’)
• Syntactic agreement markers (e.g. Gumawana komu ku-mwela ‘you 2SG-climb’, see Siewierska 2004:
120-127)
• If it would rain
• Double negation
• Paradigmatic degeneracy
• The expression of past tense by ablaut and by a dental suffix (e.g. English spoke vs. talked)
• The expression of conditional clauses by V1 or with a conjunction (if)
• Dative alternance
• double copula in Old-English (is vs. bið), Spanish (ser vs. estar)
• English nominalization suffixes (-ion, -ment, -ing, etc.)Paradigmatic degeneracy
• Two types:
• The choice between cx A and cx B is lexically specific
• E.g. some verbs take the strong inflection, other take the weak inflection (pace
diachronic shifts and (exapted) variation, e.g. De Smet & Van de Velde 2020)
• Lexemes are promiscuous in their choice between cx A and cx B
• E.g. Some verbs might prefer the prepositional dative, other might prefer the double
object cx, but the distinction is not categorical, and (co-)depends on other factorsDegeneracy in language
• Enhancing robustness and evolvability (Whitacre & Bender 2010)
• in argument realisation by case marking, prepositions, voice distinctions etc. (see Van de Velde 2014 for
diachronic corpus study. See Detges 2009 for similar effects in French): protection against case loss
(robustness)
• Frees up morphemes to do different things (evolvability). E.g. IE ŏ-grade for perfect morphology ->
auxiliary morphology (preterite-presents)Degeneracy in language • Two case studies: • Word order in Dutch • English deverbal nominalisation
Partial degenerate network in Dutch
FunctionA: FunctionB: FunctionC: FunctionD: FunctionE:
interrogative exclamative conditionals floor holding subordination
mood mood
Form1: Form2: Form3: Form4: Form5:
V1 rising intonation conjunctions subject drop non-finite formsdiachronically on the rise diachronically on the decline
FunctionA: FunctionB: FunctionC: FunctionD: FunctionE:
interrogative exclamative conditionals floor holding subordination
mood mood
Form1: Form2: Form3: Form4: Form5:
V1 rising intonation conjunctions subject drop non-finite formsFunctionA: FunctionB: FunctionC: FunctionD: FunctionE:
interrogative exclamative conditionals floor holding subordination
mood mood
insubordination
'uptalk' participle and infinitival
imperatives in Dutch
Form1: Form2: Form3: Form4: Form5:
V1 rising intonation conjunctions subject drop non-finite formsDegeneracy in Dutch interrogatives
Sentence type
statement wh-q y/n-q declarative q.
Rising intonation - - +/- +
lexical marker of interrogative mood - + - -
syntactic marker of interrogative mood - (+) + -
(inversion)Degeneracy in Dutch interrogatives
Sentence type
statement wh-q y/n-q declarative q.
Rising intonation - - +/- +
lexical marker of interrogative mood - + - -
syntactic marker of interrogative mood - (+) + -
(inversion)
Van Heuven (2017)Degeneracy in (derivational) morphology
Degeneracy in (derivational) morphology
the moving of the
statue
vs. moving the statueDegeneracy in (derivational) morphology
move vs. moving vs.
movementDegeneracy in (derivational) morphology
a moving of his hand
vs. a move of his handDegeneracy in (derivational) morphology
Degeneracy in morphology (1)
• Nominal gerund (the moving of the statue)
vs. verbal gerund (moving the statue)
• Formal and functional similarity
e.g. They want to regulate cigarette smoking out of existence but to permit the smoking of
marijuana // Well, he didn't say he endorses smoking marijuana. (COCA)
• Formal and functional differentiation
e.g. There is a saying that sense is not common, and your thoughts prove it true. // Dad
surprised us all by saying that he understood. (COCA)Degeneracy in morphology (1)
• Nominal gerund (the moving of the statue)
vs. verbal gerund (moving the statue)
• Degeneracy?
• no complete formal/functional differentiation, but attraction as well
• however:
• frequency difference > asymmetrical relation
• little overlap at lexical / token level (Maekelberghe forthc.)
• ultimately tied to different constructional networks (De Smet et al. 2018)Degeneracy in (derivational) morphology
Degeneracy in derivation (2)
• hierarchical network of English deverbal
nominalizations
• many forms, many meanings:
-ing
Fonteyn & Van de Velde (2017)Degeneracy in derivation (2)
Fonteyn & Van de Velde (2017):
• Investigate form-function links in partial network (Late Modern English)
• Suffixes taken into account: -ing, -(at)ion, -ment, -age, -al, -ance, -ery, Ø (conversion)
• Functional domain of actions
• Degeneracy?
• data indicate that the number of verb stems shared by different suffixes in the network increases
→ no clear tendency towards one-to-one mappings (cf. blocking)
• overlap is not ‘dysfunctional’: a form’s loss of meaning can be ‘compensated’ for by strengthening
the link between the functional domain involved and another, already available suffixDegeneracy in English derivation
Degeneracy in derivation (3)
• The emergence of the indefinite nominal gerund (Fonteyn & Maekelberghe 2019)
• e.g. a considerable spreading of the cause (1836, CLMET3.1)
• systematic increase in Modern English period
• Degeneracy?
• occupies functional domain already covered by indefinite zero derivations
• functional differentiation with zero derivation takes place only during later spread of iNG
(cf. iterative vs. single aspectual viewpoint)
• paradigm pressure as motivation (Blevins & Blevins 2009, Haspelmath 2014, Diewald 2020): lack of
institutionalized occurrence of indefinite article with nominal gerunds constitutes a gap in the
nominal paradigmConclusions
• Degeneracy as a strategy to maintain horizontal relations or ‘oppositions’ in
constructional networks (Van de Velde 2014) applies to both syntax and
morphology
• Thinking of language as a degenerate system can explain why
functional overlap between constructions need not be blocked/resolved from the
start
• emergence? attraction - analogy / paradigm pressure
• nature?
• links between cxns/strategies from different domains (e.g. rising intonation – inversion)
• links between members of different constructional families (e.g. non-finite clauses –
nominalizations)
• links between constructions within a constructional family (e.g. deverbal nominalizations)
→ different types/strength of horizontal links of similarity?References
• Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Bauer, L. & I. Plag. 2013. Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Beckner, C., R. Blythe, J. Bybee, M.H. Christiansen, W. Croft, N.C. Ellis, J. Holland, J. Ke, D. Larsen-Freeman, T. Schoenemann. 2009. 'Language is a Complex Adaptive
System: Position Paper'. Language Learning 59(S1): 1-26.
• Berg, T. 2014. 'Competition as a unifying concept for the study of language'. The mental Lexicon 9(2): 338-370.
• Blevins J. P. & J. Blevins. 2009. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bloomfield, L. 1935. Language. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
• De Smet H., F. D’hoedt, . Fonteyn & K. Van Goethem. 2018. ‘The changing functions of competing forms: attraction and differentiation’. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2):
197-234.
• De Smet, I. & F. Van de Velde. 2020. ‘Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch’. Cognitive Linguistics 31(3): 393-416.
• Detges, U. 2009. 'How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of preferred argument structure'. In: J. Barðdal & S.
Chelliah (eds), The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors in the development of case. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 93-120.
• Diewald, G. 2020. Paradigms lost – Paradigms regained. Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic
Construction Grammar, 277-316. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Edelman, G.M. & J.A. Gally. 2001. ‘Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98: 13763-13768.
• Fonteyn, L. 2019. Categoriality in Language Change. Oxford: Oxford university Press.
• Fonteyn, L. & C. Maekelberghe. Competing motivations in the diachronic nominalisation of English gerunds. Diachronica 35(4), 487–524.
• Haiman, J. 1980. 'The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation'. Language 59: 781-819.
• Harris, A.C. 2017. Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Haspelmath, M. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In B. MacWhinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing
motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lehmann, C. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Classics in Linguistics 1. Language Science Press.
• Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. John Benjamins.• Mandera, P., E. Keuleers & M. Brysbaert. 2017. ‘Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and
counting: a review and empirical validation’. Journal of Memory and Language 92: 57-78.
• McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Marchand, Hans. 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. München: Verlag.
• Nevalainen, Tertu. 2006. Introduction to Early Modern English.
• Paul, H. 1920. 'Principles of language history'. In: P. Auer & R. Murray (eds.), Hermann Paul's 'Principles of Language History' revisited. Berlin: Mouton.
• Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Pijpops, D. & F. Van de Velde. 2016. ‘Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?’. Folia Linguistica 50(2): 543-581.
• Pijpops, D., I. De Smet & F. Van de Velde. 2018. ‘Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies’. Constructions and Frames 10(2): 269-
305.
• Pijpops D. & . Van de Velde. 2018. ‘A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion’. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1): 99-131.
• Pijpops, D. 2017. Digging Deeper. The directional alternation in Dutch. BKL, 5 May 2017, Antwerp.
• Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ullmann, S. 1957. Principles of Semantics. New York: Philosophical Library.
• Van de Velde, F., H. De Smet & L. Ghesquière. 2013. ‘On multiple source constructions in language change’. Studies in Language 37(3): 473-489.
• Van de Velde, F. & J. van der Horst. 2013. ‘Homoplasy in diachronic grammar’. Language Sciences 36(1): 66-77.
• Van de Velde, F. 2014. ‘Degeneracy: the maintenance of constructional networks’. In: R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (eds.), The extending scope of
construction grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter. 141-179.
• Van Heuven, V. 2017. 'Prosody and sentence type in Dutch'. Nederlandse Taalkunde 22(1): 3-29.
• Whitacre, J. & A. Bender. 2010. Degeneracy: a Design Principle for Achieving Robustness and Evolvability. Journal of Theoretical Biology 263: 143-153.
• Winter, B. 2014. ‘Spoken language achieves robustness and evolvability by exploiting degeneracy and neutrality’ Bioessays 36: 960-967.
• Zehentner, E. 2021. 'Ambiguity avoidance as a factor in the rise of the English dative alternation'. Cognitive Linguistics.You can also read
