Productivity and schematicity in constructional change Florent - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Productivity and schematicity in constructional change

Florent Perek

University of Birmingham

Diachronic construction grammar

• New approach to language change
• Grammar = inventory of form-meaning pairs, aka constructions
• E.g., the way-construction

They hacked their way through the jungle. We pushed our way into the pub. NPX V PossX way PPY ‘X moves along Y by V-ing’

Diachronic construction grammar

• Constructions can be defined at any level of generality
• They can be related in a taxonomic network

‘X changes Y’ (change of state) Sbj BREAK Obj Sbj MELT Obj Sbj BREAK the ice Sbj BREAK Poss heart SbjX V ObjY ‘X creates Y’ (creation) SbjX V ObjY ‘X affects Y’ SbjX V ObjY Sbj COOK Obj Sbj BUILD Obj

Two types of change in DCxG

• Constructionalization: creation of a new form-meaning

pair, usually from instances of existing constructions

• Constructional change: change in the properties of

existing constructions

• Two aspects of constructional change are often

discussed: productivity and schematicity

Schematicity

• The level of generality in the meaning of a construction
• Change in schematicity: a construction takes a more

general/specific meaning

dog (ME) † dog (ME)

(~ PDE mastiff)

greyhound corgi dog (PDE)

Schematicity

• Increase in schematicity: creation or reinforcement of a

node higher up the taxonomic hierarchy of constructions

• Reinforcement = the node becomes more available for

categorization

Construction A’ Construction A Construction A1

Productivity

• Property of a construction to be used with new lexical

items (‘extensibility’, Barðdal 2008)

• ‘Extensibility’ not measurable in earlier periods
• But its implications can: diachronic variation in the range
• f lexical fillers that can be used in a construction

Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Productivity

• Productivity involves the creation of new nodes

subordinate to a construction

• Changes in productivity are measured by the lexical

distribution of a construction a different points in time

V one’s way PP

find one’s way PP make one’s way PP cut one’s way PP

Productivity and schematicity

• Commonly thought to be interrelated
• A more schematic meaning can be applied to a wider

range of situations

• Hence, more items are compatible with the schema
• Conversely, the occurrence of new types may contribute

to schema extension

• If a new type is not covered by the schema, the latter can

be adjusted (coercion)

Productivity and schematicity

• Schematicity = productivity?
• Can the two notions be collapsed?
• Can the distribution of a construction be used to make

claims about its schematicity? NO to all of the above!

Schematicity à productivity?

• Changes in constructional meaning do not always entail

changes in productivity

• At best, schematicity defines the productivity domain, i.e.,

the set of items that may be used in the construction

• But not all of these items are necessarily attested at any

given time, and they may never be

• Subject to the communicative needs of speakers
• Case in point: spend in the way-construction

Schematicity à productivity?

• First instances in the 1930s: linked to the New Deal

Is it true that we can spend our way to prosperity? (1935) There is no recorded instance of any nation having spent its way out of a depression. (1935) [S]uch a statement stands in clear opposition to the Administration’s philosophy of spending our way into recovery. (1939)

• Spend could have been used in the construction earlier
• But it is this socio-historical context that coined it

Schematicity à productivity?

• The literature typically reports gradual expansion of the

distribution of constructions

• E.g., a lot of / lots of (Traugott & Trousdale 2013)

[a lothead [ of N ] ] ‘set of N’ à [ [a lot of] Nhead] ‘many N’

• Constructionalization in the 18th century
• Initially used mostly with concrete nouns

a lot of people / goods / land …

• Open to abstract nouns only from the mid-19th century

a lot of power / ideas / love …

Schematicity à productivity?

• Quantifier many a N (Hilpert 2012, Hilpert & Perek 2015)

Many a sailor has suffered from scurvy. For many a day the flowers have spread.

• Loss of types, especially in some semantic domains, e.g.,

body parts, emotions, ideas

• No apparent change in

constructional meaning

2010 1830 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 50 100 150 200 250 300

Types

Productivity à schematicity?

• Novel combinations are innovative if they are not covered

by the schema abstracted over attested uses

• Hence, the relevant schema is at the level of the lexical

slot, NOT the entire construction

: attested type : new type

Cx: ... Slot1 ... Slot2 ...

Productivity à schematicity?

• If repeated, creative uses that once sounded ‘deviant’ can

become conventional

: attested type : new type

Cx: ... Slot1 ... Slot2 ...

• If repeated, creative uses that once sounded ‘deviant’ can

become conventional

• This leads to increased schematicity of the lexical slot

Productivity à schematicity?

: attested type : new type

Cx: ... Slot1 ... Slot2 ...

Productivity à schematicity?

• Productivity affects the schematicity of lexical slots
• But not necessarily that of the entire construction
• This depends on how the new types relate to attested
• nes AND to the constructional meaning

– Certain types require/cause adjustments in the constructional meaning, but not others – Constructional schematization cannot be assumed without examining this relation at the level of individual instances

The case of the way-construction

• Construction initially centered on physical verbs, in line with

the diachronic origin (Israel 1996, from OED data)

pave, smooth, cut, etc. (17th century) bridge, hew, sheer, plough, dig, clear, etc. (18th century)

• More abstract types are attested later, especially from the

19th century onwards

smirk, spell, write (Israel 1996), joke, laugh, talk, bully (Perek 2016)

• Same findings in Perek (2016) in 19th-20th AmE (COHA)

Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 217-230. Perek, F. (2016). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ahead-of-print.

1830−1879

make take think find feel work pay

• pen

understand break wear cut lie eat win pick strike fight sleep force push burn gain press spread tear fit beg burst struggle kick dig smell trace guide crush melt enforce explore shape squeeze conquer explode shove crash pierce smooth carve spell rip steer poke fan track punch grope root screw fumble dispute flap plow leak wrestle shoulder pave probe gnaw bribe maneuver wedge marshal plough rend hew burrow fiddle

1880−1929

make take think find feel work talk read pay break wear cut lie drive buy build eat win pick fight shoot sing teach sleep force guess push drink hit burn beat gain press plan extend spread dare steal tear worry argue dance beg earn burst bore kick dig purchase smell trace plead bite crush melt taste shape crack squeeze reason shove scratch blaze hug stuff smash lick pierce carve spell rip steer poke blast advertise perfect grope screw battle fumble flap stammer experiment gesture slash forge plow fret wrestle hack hitch shoulder trick hustle batter pave probe gnaw bribe prick shear bully saw thrash wedge claw scorch plough simmer jostle scent pilot brew hew paw burrow butt

1930−1969

make take think find feel work run live write talk read pay play break wear laugh cut lie drive kill buy spend smile eat pull win pick fight act shoot sing marry force push drink burn beat press blow plan manage kiss steal tear sign argue swing dance dream beg figure wash earn bore kick dig wrap smell trace crowd borrow bite crush melt murder explore tap crack squeeze reason whip clutch shove slam scratch pitch blaze negotiate rattle chew smash analyze carve grind rip pound grip poke flatter cheat quarrel blast joke fish punch soak grope root battle mumble drill fumble kid peel compromise sting puff hammer flap brood chatter chop bust slice forge wrestle hack hitch model clip con shoulder snarl cram batter harvest probe nudge digest bellow conspire gnaw bribe finger maneuver bully ruffle tick saw wrest thrash rape scribble wedge bawl nibble claw plough box grate drum paste foul hew paw burrow etch butt

1970−2009

make take think find feel work write talk read pay

• pen

grow lead play break wear laugh cut lie kill buy spend smile build eat pull explainwin pick fight agree act shoot sing sleep marry force push settle drink study announce imagine burn beat nod gain press deal manage kiss whisper pray tear worry stretch argue dance acquire dream paint figure knock earn struggle arrest bore smoke kick toss dig cling purchase cook aim smell trace grin borrow shrug entertain hunt invest focus melt contemplate taste consume labor squeeze reason trade shiver groan shove slam scratch negotiate spit blink chew hug smash lick wheel smooth carve spell grind rip pound stroke steer will poke flatter cheat trim sniff blast sue shatter hook sip rage chat scrape joke punch grope pump click wail flip screw puzzle battle mumble drill charm fumble export peel dust plot hammer sort flap twitch chop pry storm slash slice graze forge plow coax wrestle hack hitch crumble tickle con scrub shoulder trick brave dial vibrate bargain skate cram batter pave probe nudge slaughter bat bribe gamble seduce finger fund maneuver bully saw thrash wedge wrinkle nibble mop claw tangle navigate jostle seep petition swap pilot improvise sample stomp inflate ram paw burrow seethe key etch butt discipline

Distributional semantic plots of verbs in the path-creation sense of the way-construction (Perek 2016)

The case of the way-construction

• More semantic diversity à increase in the schematicity of

the verb slot

• Is there an increase in schematicity of the rest of the

constructional meaning?

• Many new verb classes correspond to unusual ways to

cause motion: interaction, commerce, cognition, etc.

More likely to involve abstract, metaphorical motion, e.g.: [T]hey talk about Uncle Paul having bought his way into the Senate! [She] managed to talk her way out of the ticket. (but: [I]t took Beau more than an hour to talk his way into the Fort Morgan brig. à concrete)

1830−1879

make take think find feel work pay

• pen

understand break wear cut lie eat win pick strike fight sleep force push burn gain press spread tear fit beg burst struggle kick dig smell trace guide crush melt enforce explore shape squeeze conquer explode shove crash pierce smooth carve spell rip steer poke fan track punch grope root screw fumble dispute flap plow leak wrestle shoulder pave probe gnaw bribe maneuver wedge marshal plough rend hew burrow fiddle

1880−1929

make take think find feel work talk read pay break wear cut lie drive buy build eat win pick fight shoot sing teach sleep force guess push drink hit burn beat gain press plan extend spread dare steal tear worry argue dance beg earn burst bore kick dig purchase smell trace plead bite crush melt taste shape crack squeeze reason shove scratch blaze hug stuff smash lick pierce carve spell rip steer poke blast advertise row perfect grope screw battle fumble flap stammer experiment gesture slash forge plow fret wrestle hack hitch shoulder trick hustle batter pave probe gnaw bribe prick shear bully saw thrash wedge claw scorch plough simmer jostle scent pilot brew hew paw burrow butt

1930−1969

make take think find feel work run live write talk read pay play break wear laugh cut lie drive kill buy spend smile eat pull win pick fight act shoot sing marry force push drink burn beat press blow plan manage kiss steal tear sign argue swing dance dream beg figure wash earn bore kick dig wrap smell trace crowd borrow bite crush melt murder explore tap crack squeeze reason whip clutch shove slam scratch pitch blaze negotiate rattle chew smash analyze carve grind rip pound grip poke flatter cheat quarrel blast joke fish punch soak grope root battle mumble drill fumble kid peel compromise sting puff hammer flap brood chatter chop bust slice forge wrestle hack hitch model clip con shoulder snarl cram batter harvest probe nudge digest bellow conspire gnaw bribe finger maneuver bully ruffle tick saw wrest thrash rape scribble wedge bawl nibble claw plough box grate drum paste foul hew paw burrow etch butt

1970−2009

make take think find feel work write talk read pay

• pen

grow lead play break wear laugh cut lie kill buy spend smile build eat pull explain win pick fight agree act shoot sing sleep marry force push settle drink study announce imagine burn beat nod gain press deal manage kiss whisper pray tear worry stretch argue dance acquire dream paint figure knock earn struggle arrest bore smoke kick toss dig cling purchase cook aim smell trace grin borrow shrug entertain hunt invest focus melt contemplate taste consume labor squeeze reason trade shiver groan shove slam scratch negotiate spit blink chew hug smash lick wheel smooth carve spell grind rip pound stroke steer will poke flatter cheat trim sniff blast sue shatter hook sip rage chat scrape joke punch grope pump click wail flip screw puzzle battle mumble drill charm fumble export peel dust plot hammer sort flap twitch chop pry storm slash slice graze forge plow coax wrestle hack hitch crumble tickle con scrub shoulder trick brave dial vibrate bargain skate cram batter pave probe nudge slaughter bat bribe gamble seduce finger fund maneuver bully saw thrash wedge wrinkle nibble mop claw tangle navigate jostle seep petition swap pilot improvise sample stomp inflate ram paw burrow seethe key etch butt discipline

100% concrete uses 100% abstract uses 50% abstract / 50% concrete

The case of the way-construction

• Does the construction become more open to more diverse

metaphorical motion uses?

• Pilot study restricted to the preposition into (1296 tokens

from COHA, 1830-2009)

• Categories of abstract uses were identified in the early

periods: 1830s, 1840s and 1850s (139 tokens)

• 12 categories of abstract uses in 1830-1859: how well do

they cover the later periods?

Metaphorical use Example The Mind is a Container for Ideas The conception of vice has hardly found its way into Ophelia's mind. The Heart is a Container for Feelings, Emotions, etc. But a silent sorrow had made its way into her bosom. T exts are Containers for Ideas, Stories, Words, etc. The anecdote has found its way into the newspapers. A Group of People is a Container for its Members He has forced his way into good society. States are Containers He fought his way into notice by a duel with one of the Rutledges. Change of Possession I’m glad the money finds its way into the pockets of the like of him. A Whole is a Container for Parts The black currant should always find its way into every garden. Subject, Area of Expertise, etc. The learned pressed their way into the field of metaphysics. Ideas are Moving Entities In 1811 this new branch of Industry made its way into France. Sound/light/diseases are Moving Entities … the brightest sunlight that ever found its way into a kitchen

1830 1860 1890 1920 1950 1980 2010 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distribution of metaphors in the abstract uses of the way-construction

% of tokens group heart idea mind misc

• ther

part-whole possession state text

Metaphors in the way-construction

• Increase in the range of situations conceptualised as

motion in uses of the construction

• Some new types:

– Language is a Container for Words, Expressions, etc. Words from that quarter have made their way into our speech. – A Role, Job, Function, etc. is a Container He has forced his way into top management positions at Canal-Randolph. – Joining an Institution is Motion … a 39-year-old New York woman who has finally worked her way into college …

A usage-based recent history of the way-construction

• Increase in schematicity: the creation of new abstract uses

reinforces the more schematic node

• This reinforcement in turn invites the creation of more

abstract uses

Theme moves into Location Idea moves into Mind Mind is a Container Idea moves into Heart Heart is a Container Person moves into Group Group is a Container X moves into Y by Ving

…

Word moves into Language Language is a Container Person moves into Job Job is a Container

Summary

• Schematicity and productivity are related
• But not the same phenomenon: they should not be

collapsed, they should be kept separate

• Two types of schematicity should be distinguished: at the

level of slots and at the level of the entire construction

• Productivity is directly related to the schematicity of slots
• The schematicity of constructions should not be

investigated through the lexical distribution

• Rather, by examining the constructs themselves

Thanks for your attention!

f.b.perek@bham.ac.uk www.fperek.net