Cover not available
Part of
Analogy and Contrast in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics
Edited by Karolina Krawczak, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcin Grygiel
[Human Cognitive Processing 73] 2022
► pp. 341–370

Chapter 11
Modeling constructional variation

A multifactorial account of the contrast in construal between analogical causative constructions in Polish

| Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
This chapter is a corpus-based quantitative investigation of an alternation between clausal and nominal complements observed for complex causal adpositions in Polish. Constructional alternations represent an excellent example of analogy and contrast in language. Not only do they encode conceptually comparable and yet subtly contrastive content in structurally contrasting forms, but the choice between them is necessarily determined by analogical reasoning. The primary objective of this study is to establish what contrasts conceptually the two forms and therefore determines the speaker’s choice of one of the two constructions and their corresponding construals. While so doing, the study tests empirically a specific hypothesis informed by relevant prior research. The hypothesis in question concerns the impact of the discursive status of information (i.e., its newness vs. givenness) on the choice between clausal and nominal complements of complex causal adpositions. The results, obtained through multivariate modelling of the data, provide evidence to corroborate the importance of this explanatory variable.
Keywords: causal links, clausal and nominal complementation, complex adpositions, corpus-based, multivariate statistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Data and analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Identifying statistical tendencies in the sample
    • 4.2Explaining linguistic choice beyond the sample
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.73.11kra
References (65)
References
Abraham, E. 1991. Why ‘because’? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text, 11(3), 323–339.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica, 38(1), 20–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold J., Wasow T., Losongco A., & Ginstrom R. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 17(1), 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics, 33, 35–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L. 2000. Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 687–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., & Radden, G. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2006. Ways of intending: A corpus-based cognitive linguistic approach to near-synonyms in Russian. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010a. Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b. Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic aspect-modality interaction in Russian. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches (305–330). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Fieller, N. 2014. Cluster analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (405–442). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabiszak, M., Hebda, A., Kokorniak, I., & Krawczak, K. 2014. The semasiological structure of Polish myśleć ‘to think’: A study in verb-prefix semantics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (223–251). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. 2010. Heterodox concept features and onomasiological heterogeneity in dialects. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics (21–40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. 2009. Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for cognitive semantics. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (77–106.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based cognitive semantics. In H.-J. Schmid, & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns (89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Correspondence analysis Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (443–485). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. Quantifying polysemy. Corpus methodology for prototype theory. Folia Linguistica, 50, 413–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Semasiology and onomasiology. Empirical questions between meaning, naming and context. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelman, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of paradigms. New paradoxes: Re-contextualizing language and linguistics (47–79). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, K. (Eds.). 2010. Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. (Eds.) 2014. Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th. 2001. A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Corpus-based methods and Cognitive Semantics: The many senses of to run. In St. Th. Gries, & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (57–99). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, St., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. 2008. National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (153–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In St. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (241–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2012. Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D., & S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., & Solovyev, V. 2009. What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of the Russian words for sadness and happiness. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K. 2015a. Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn, & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and narration (303–328). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
2015b. Polish blog-based corpus. Poznan: UAM.Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Kokorniak, I. 2012. A corpus-driven quantitative approach to the construal of Polish ‘think’. PSiCL, 48, 439–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D. 2015. Operationalizing mirativity: A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 253–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M. 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(2), 475–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D. 2019. Operationalizing construal. A corpus-based study in cognition and communication constructions. Jezikoslovlje, 20(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 235–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N, Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. 2013. Mapping constructional spaces: A contrastive analysis of English and Dutch analytic causatives. Linguistics, 51(4), 825–854. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (223–254). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. In S. Thompson, & W. Mann (Eds.), Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fundraising text (295–325). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: A quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse Processes, 8, 281–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. 2002. Introduction: Some basic issues in the grammar of causation. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (1–22). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D. 2014. Logistic regression A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn, & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (487–533). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. 2009. Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch doen and laten. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. (Eds.). 2006. Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsányi, B. M. 2005. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis (1031–1038). Leuven: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The English genitive alternation in a Cognitive Sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (141–166). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Grammatical variation in British English dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Speelman D., & Geeraerts, D. 2005. Inflectional variation in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch: A usage-based account of the adjectival inflection. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera, & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Perspectives on variation. Sociolinguistic, historical, comparative (93–110). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow T. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, St., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, Th. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (265–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar