Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 27:3 (2022) ► pp.259–290

Lectal contamination

Evidence from corpora and from agent-based simulation

ORCID logo | RU Lilith, University of Liège
This paper presents evidence from both corpora and agent-based simulation for the effect of lectal contamination. By doing so, it shows how agent-based simulation can be used as a complementary technique to corpus research in the study of language variation. Lectal contamination is an effect whereby the words that are typical of a language variety more often appear in a morphosyntactic variant typical of that same variety, even among language use from a different variety. This study looks at the Dutch partitive genitive construction, which exhibits variation between a “Netherlandic” variant with -s ending and a “Belgian” variant without -s ending. It is shown that the probability of the Belgian variant without -s increases among more “Belgian” words, in the language use of both Belgians and people from the Netherlands. Meanwhile, an agent-based simulation reveals the crucial theoretical preconditions that lead to this effect.
Keywords: agent-based modelling, simulation, lectal contamination, mixed regression modelling, partitive genitive
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Preconditions and predictions of lectal contamination
  • 3.Corpus study
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Analyses
  • 4.Agent-based simulation
    • 4.1Design and evaluation
    • 4.2Implementation
    • 4.3Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij
References (72)
References
Algeo, J. (2006). British or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version 1.4) [Computer software]. [URL]
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59 (1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentivoglio, P., & Sedano, M. (2011). Morphosyntactic variation in Spanish–speaking Latin America. In M. Díaz-Campos (Ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics (pp. 123–147). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K., & Steels, L. (2013). Agent-based models of strategies for the emergence and evolution of grammatical agreement. PLoS ONE, 8 (3), e58960. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F. (2015). An agent-based model of a historical word order change. In R. Berwick, A. Korhonen, A. Lenci, T. Poibeau, & A. Villavicencio (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning (pp. 22–27). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blythe, R., & Croft, W. (2012). S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language, 88 (2), 269–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. (2013). Syntax of Dutch: Adjectives and Adjective Phrases. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2020, from [URL]
Claes, J. (2015). Competing constructions: The pluralization of presentational haber in Dominican Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2009). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31 (5), 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (4), 617–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daems, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2015). Wat dragen we vandaag: een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje? [What do we wear today: A ‘hemd’ with a ‘blazer’ or a ‘shirt’ with a ‘jasje’?] Taal En Tongval, 67 (2), 307–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2004). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Retrieved January, 2020, from [URL]
(2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved January, 2020, from [URL]
De Vylder, B. (2007). The Evolution of Conventions in Multi-agent Systems [Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel]. [URL]
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 296–322). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, C., Elspaß, S. & Ziegler, A. (Eds.). (2018). Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen. Ein Online-Nachschlagewerk [Variant grammar of Standard German. An online reference work]. [URL]
Fagyal, Z., Swarup, S., Escobar, A. M., Gasser, L., & Lakkaraju, K. (2010). Centers and peripheries: Network roles in language change. Lingua, 120 (8), 2061–2079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Friendly, M., Hong, J., Andersen, R., Firth, D., & Taylor, S. (2016). Effect Displays for Linear, Generalized Linear, and Other Models (Version 3.2) [Computer software]. [URL]
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen [Convergence and divergence in Dutch vocabulary: A study into clothing and football terminology]. P. J. Meertens-Instituut.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. (2008). Agent-based Models. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W. (2013). Belgian Dutch. In F. Hinskens & J. Taeldeman (Eds.), Language and Space: Dutch (pp. 700–720). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammer]. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Harrell, F. J. (2017). Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous (Version 4.0-3) [Computer software]. [URL]
Hay, J. (2018). Sociophonetics: The role of words, the role of context, and the role of words in context. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10 (4), 696–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., Walker, A., Sanchez, K., & Thompson, K. (2019). Abstract social categories facilitate access to socially skewed words. PLoS ONE, 14 (2), e0210793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Flach, S. (forthcoming). A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In M. Grygiel (Ed.), Contrast and Analogy in Language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. John Benjamins.
Höder, S. (2014). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. Åfarli & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar (pp. 137–152). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact Constructional Perspectives on Contact Phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, H., Steels, L., Baronchelli, A., Briscoe, T., Christiansen, M., Griffiths, T., Jäger, G., Kirby, S., Komarova, N., Peter, R., & Jochen, T. (2009). What can mathematical, computational, and robotic models tell us about the origins of syntax? In Biological Foundations and Origin of Syntax. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karjus, A., & Ehala, M. (2018). Testing an agent-based model of language choice on sociolinguistic survey data. Language Dynamics and Change, 8 (2), 219–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landsbergen, F. (2009). Cultural Evolutionary Modeling of Patterns in Language Change: Exercises in Evolutionary Linguistics. LOT.Google Scholar
Landsbergen, F., Lachlan, R., ten Cate, C., & Verhagen, A. (2010). A cultural evolutionary model of patterns in semantic change. Linguistics, 48 (2), 363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2020). vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data (Version 1.4-6) [Computer software]. [URL]
Oostdijk, N., Goedertier, W., Van Eynde, F., Boves, L., Martens, J.-P., Moortgat, M., & Baayen, H. (2002). Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 340–347.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013a). SoNaR User Documentation (version 1.0.4). [URL]
(2013b). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch, Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing (pp. 219–247). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84 1, 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Martín, A. M. (2007). Pluralización de había en el habla de El Hierro: Datos cuantitativos [Pluralization of había in the speech of El Hierro: Quantitative data]. Revista de Filología de La Universidad de La Laguna, 25 1, 505–513.Google Scholar
Phan, D., & Varenne, F. (2010). Agent-based models and simulations in economics and social sciences. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13 (4), 1532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2019). How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary? A Usage-Based Investigation into the Dutch Transitive-Prepositional Alternation [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. [URL]
Pijpops, D., & Beuls, K. (2015). Agent-gebaseerde modellering in de historische taalkunde. Een model van regularisatiedruk op de Nederlandse werkwoorden [Agent-based modelling in historical linguistics: A model of the regularization pressure on Dutch verbs]. Handelingen Der Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij Voor Taal- En Letterkunde En Geschiedenis, 69 1, 5–23.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., Beuls, K., & Van de Velde, F. (2015). The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic: An agent-based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 5 1, 81–102.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., De Smet, I., & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax: Four case studies. Constructions and Frames, 10 (2), 269–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2015). Ethnolect speakers and Dutch partitive adjectival inflection: A corpus analysis. Taal En Tongval, 67 (2), 343–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50 (2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plevoets, K. (2008). Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands [Between language for speaking and standard language. A corpus-based study to the situational, regional and social diffusion of a number of morphosyntactic features of spoken Belgian Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. [URL]
Ruette, T. (2012). Aggregating Lexical Variation: Towards Large-scale Lexical Lectometry [Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven]. LIRIAS @ KU Leuven. [URL]
Ruette, T., Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2016). A lectometric analysis of aggregated lexical variation in written Standard English with Semantic Vector Space models. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21 (1), 48–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, M., Wagner, M., & Torreira, F. (2018). Quantitative Methods for Linguistic Data. [URL]
Speelman, Dirk. (2014). Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (pp. 487–533). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2018). Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews, 8 (4), 339–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Language as a complex adaptive system. In M. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 17–26). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and Communication (pp. 151–173). Continuum.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61 (2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Agtmaal-Wobma, E., Harmsen, C., Dal, L., & Poulain, M. (2007). Belgen in Nederland en Nederlanders in België [Belgians in the Netherlands and Dutchmen in Belgium]. Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek (CBS). [URL]
van den Toorn, M. C. (1977). Nederlandse Grammatica [Dutch Grammar] (5th ed.). Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
van der Horst, J. (2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
van Eerten, L. (2007). Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [About the Corpus of Spoken Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 12 (3), 194–215.Google Scholar
Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Python 3 Reference Manual. CreateSpace.Google Scholar
van Trijp, R., & Steels, L. (2012). Multilevel alignment maintains language systematicity. Advances in Complex Systems, 15 (3–4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wellens, P. (2012). Adaptive Strategies in the Emergence of Lexical Systems. Dissertation Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Wieling, M., & Nerbonne, J. (2015). Advances in dialectometry. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1 1, 243–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pijpops, Dirk, Karlien Franco, Dirk Speelman & Freek Van de Velde
2024. Introduction: what are alternations and how should we study them?. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.