Cover not available
Part of
Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar
Edited by Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
[Constructional Approaches to Language 21] 2018
► pp. 169–202

Type frequency, productivity and schematicity in the evolution of the Latin secundum NP construction

This paper adopts a constructional approach as a heuristic to explore the changes undergone by Latin secundum NP ‘according to NP’, considering both its frequency and its network organisation. My data demonstrate a significant syntactic and host-class expansion of secundum NP between the years BC 106 – AD 17 and a support to Barðdal’s (2008) model of productivity. The vocabulary growth curve for the construction also suggests that the productivity of secundum NP remains high in all the periods considered. Finally, the discussion highlights the role played by the social context in stimulating some of the changes observed, which is crucial in order to interpret the quantitative data.
Keywords: constructional network, productivity, schematization, expansion, social context, frequency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammatical constructionalisation of secundum NP: A reconstruction
  • 3.The secundum NP construction in the Latin Library corpus
  • 4. Frequency effects: Productivity and schematicity
  • 5. Hapax legomena counts and productivity
  • 6.Type frequency counts: Syntactic and host-class expansion of secundum NP
    • 6.1Syntactic expansion
    • 6.2Host-class expansion
  • 7.Accounting for the increase in productivity with Barðdal (2008)
  • 8.Analogy and cultural factors at play
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations used in the interlinear glosses
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c7
References (56)
References
Baayen, H. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij, & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992 (pp. 181–208). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2009). Corpus Linguistics in Morphology. Morphological Productivity. In A. Lüdeling, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook. Volume 2 (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Predicting the Productivity of Argument Structure Constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32, 467–478.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Gildea, S. (2015). Diachronic construction grammar. Epistemological context, basic assumptions and historical implications. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, & L. Sommerer (Eds.), Diachronic construction grammar (pp. 1–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Reproduced in J. Bybee (2007) (Ed.), Frequency of use and the organization of language (pp. 269–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization. The role of frequency. In R. Janda, & B. Joseph (Eds.) Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a). Introduction. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency of use and the organization of language (pp. 5–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007b). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colish, M. L. (1990). The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Volume 2: Stoicism in Christian thought through the sixth century. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. (forthcoming). Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logo
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Boer, E. (2005). The gospel of Mary: Listening to the beloved disciple. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ferguson, E. (2003). Background of early Christianity. Third Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
Ferrari, L. (1998). A gramaticalização de formas não-finitas como evidência da motivação conceptual do léxico. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos Veredas, 2(1), 103–115.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guardamagna, C. (2016a). A cognitive-constructional approach to the development of Latin secundum NP. Unpublished PhD thesis. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
(2016b). A diachronic semantic map for the Latin preposition secundum . Journal of Latin Linguistics, 15(2), 233–279.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammond, M. (1976). Latin. A historical and linguistic handbook. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (2004). Grammaticalization. In B. Joseph, & R. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 575–601). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Reh, M. (1984). Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., & Narrog, H. (2011). Introduction. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2012). Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the Noun Phrase: Studying many a Noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen, & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English (pp. 233–244). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013a). Corpus-Based approaches to Constructional Change. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 458–476). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013b). Constructional changes in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hollmann, W. B. (2003). Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: A cognitive perspective. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Hopper, N., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. (2012). Constructional Meaning and Compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Volume 3 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiss, T. (2007). Produktivität und Idiomatizität von Präposition-Substanti-Sequenzen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 26(2), 317–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühner R., & Holzweissig, F. (1966[1912]). Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache. Second edition. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II. Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1995 [1982]). Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: LINCOM (Revised second edition of Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch, 1982).Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67(3), 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, W. M. (1915). Short historical Latin grammar. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Poultney, J. W. (1980). The phonology of ‑nd‑ and the Latin gerundive. In H. J. Izzo (Ed.), Italic and Romance. Linguistic Studies in Honor of Ernst Pulgram. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rocha, L. F. (1998). Anàlise do caràter polissêmico do vocàbulo latino SECUNDUS. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Departimento de Letras, Lingüìstica – Grupo Gramàtica & Cognição. Principia Caminhos da Iniciação Cientifica, 3, 173–179.Google Scholar
Sharma, U., & Karma, S. K. (2003). Western political thought. Volume 1: From Plato to Burke. New Delhi: Atlantic.Google Scholar
Štichauer, P. (2009). Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of the deverbal nouns in ‑mento, ‑zione and ‑gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th Century. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes (pp. 138–147). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [URL]
Studer, B. (1994). Trinity and incarnation: The faith of the early church. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1995). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In D. Stein, & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 31–54). Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vernon Arnold, E. (2014[1911]). Roman Stoicism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vineis, E. (1998). Latin. In A. Giacalone Ramat, & P. Ramat (Eds.), The Indo-European languages (pp. 261–321). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A. (2009). Quantifying constructional productivity with slot members. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, June 5th, Boulder, CO (pp. 47–54). Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). On the productivity and variability of the slots in German comparative correlative constructions. In M. Konopka, J. Kubczak, C. Mair, & U. H. Štìcha Waßnr (Eds.), Grammar & Corpora, Third International Conference, Mannheim 22nd–24th of September 2009 (pp. 429–449). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
(2012). Productivity in argument selection. From morphology to syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latin corpus
The Latin Library corpus. Available at [URL] Accessed 28 February 2014.
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Höder, Steffen
2023. Chapter 4. The Devil is in the schema. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Dekalo, Volodymyr
2021. Exploring relative degrees of auxiliarization empirically in German modal constructions with wissen and verstehen. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2019. Compound worlds and metaphor landscapes: Affixoids, allostructions, and higher-order generalizations. Word Structure 12:3 ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.