On parents and peers in constructional networks

ON PARENTS AND PEERS

IN CONSTRUCTIONAL

NETWORKS

Muriel Norde

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 2

• What is a network?

• What kind of links are there?

• How do networkschange?

OUTLINE

� Theoretical preliminaries: some basic concepts in construction grammar� emphasis on construction morphology

� constructions

� schemas

� networks

� constructional change and constructionalization

� Links in a constructional network: a taxonomy

� Case studies: realignment in constructional networks� Loss of a schema: Swedish –er after Deflexion

� Rise of a schema: Dutch diminutive intensifying prefixoids

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 3

Some basic concepts in construction grammar

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014

4

CONSTRUCTIONS (1)

� Superordinate label for cognitive approaches to grammar

� Considers linguistic knowledge to be knowledge of a network of conventionalized and entrenched symbolic pairings of form and meaning

� basic unit of analysis: construction� =form-meaning pairing

� ranging from the morphemic to the utterance level of linguistic structure

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 5

CONSTRUCTIONS (2)

� No strict division between grammar and lexicon

� both words and larger units are considered symbolic units, linking properties of form and meaning

� words: substantive and atomic (i.e. minimal syntactic units)

� multi-word units: (at least in part) schematic and complex

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 6

SCHEMAS

� “In contrast to constructive rules (which need notresemble expressions, and filters (which by definitioncannot), schemas must resemble the expressions theycharacterize. Schemas emerge from expressions throughreinforcement of the commonalities they exhibit at somelevel of abstraction.” (Langacker 2008: 291; emphasisoriginal)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 7

MORPHOLOGICAL SCHEMAS

� Basic schema (Booij 2010, 2013)

� [a]Xi � [SEM]i

� a: phonological string

� X: part of speech

� i: lexical index

� �: symbolic unit between form (left) and meaning (right)

� Example 1: right-headed binominal compound

� [[a]Ni[b]Nj]Nk � [SEMj with relation R to SEMi]k

� Example 2: suffixal derivation deriving N from A

� [[a]Ai b]Nj � [[SEM]i SEM]j

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 8

NETWORKS (1)

� “Any construction with unique, idiosynchraticmorphological, syntactic, lexical, semantic, pragmatic OR

discourse-functional properties must be represented as an independent node in the constructional network in order to capture a speaker’s knowledge of theirlanguage.” (Croft 2001: 25)

� “[…] we can describe a language as a structuredinventory of conventional linguistic units.” (Langacker2008: 222; emphasis original)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 9

NETWORKS (2)

� What is the status of constructionalnetworks?� representations of speakers’ knowledge of language?

� a linguist’s construct?

� What is the status of schemas?� “superordinate” nodes in a network, to which subschemas

and micro-constructions are linked?

� the links themselves?

� Compare Eva Dąbrowska (this morning): “We needto be clear about the cognitive status of linguisticgeneralizations.”

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 10

REPRESENTATION (1)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 11

Langacker 2008: 239

REPRESENTATION (2)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 12

Bybee 2010: 23

A DIACHRONICPERSPECTIVE

�Based on: Traugott & Trousdale (2013)

�Two main concepts� constructionalization

� constructional change

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 13

A USAGE-BASEDAPPROACH TO CHANGE

� Traugott & Trousdale (2013: 21) and references there

� Change is:� negotiated between speakers in the course of interaction

� instantiated by people of all ages

� innovation followed by conventionalization

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 14

CONSTRUCTIONALIZATION

� “Constructionalization is the creation of formnew--meaningnew (combinations of) signs. It formsnew type nodes, which have new syntax or morphologyand new coded meaning, in the linguistics network of a population of speakers.” (Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 22)

� Basic mechanism: neoanalysis

� Constructionalization of schemas is gradual

� Constructionalization of micro-constructions may be:� instantaneous (in lexical or contentful cxnzn)

� gradual (in grammatical or procedural cxnzn)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 15

� “A constructionalchange is a change affecting one internaldimension of a construction. It does notinvolve the creation of a new node.” (Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 26)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 16

Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 28

CONSTRUCTIONALIZATION (1)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 17

SCHEMA

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

< Traugott & Trousdale


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 18

SCHEMA

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXNMICRO-CXNnew

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

e.g. a lot of as quantifier


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 19

SCHEMA

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 20

SCHEMA

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMAnew

e.g. epistemic modals


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 21

MICRO-CXN

MICRO-CXN

MICRO-CXN

MICRO-CXN


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 22

SUBSCHEMAnew

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMAnew

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

e.g. definite article e.g. determiner possessive


12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 23

SCHEMAnew

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

SUBSCHEMA

MICRO-CXN MICRO-CXN

e.g. determiner schema

Under construction (no pun intended)


24

OBJECTIVES

� To identify types of links in a constructionalnetwork� on different levels

� regarding both form and meaning

� To identify properties of constructions that(may) play a role in change

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 25

SOME PRELIMINARYOBSERVATIONS� So far, emphasis has been on vertical relations, whereas

horizontal relations have been largely neglected (cf. Van de Velde 2014: 141)

� For example, is coercion always suggestive of meaninginherited from a schema?

� She sneezed the napkin of the table� caused motion pattern (Goldberg 1995)?

� semantic resemblance to blow, i.e. created by analogy withexisting caused motion verbs? (Capelle 2014)? -> patternsof coining (Kay 2013)

� To the extent that a high-level schema […] emerges at all, it is still the overall network that specifies the details of itsimplementation in actual language use.” (Langacker 2008: 239; emphasis mine)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 26

LINKS: A PRELIMINARY TAXONOMY

� point of departure: Traugott&Trousdalian network(schemas, subschemas, microconstructions)

� Two main types:� parents (inheritance links, “vertical”; both form and

meaning)

� peers (lateral links, “horizontal”)

� intraparadigmatic links (micro-constructions with the same base (for either inflection or derivation))

� interparadigmatic links (micro-constructions that inherit from the same (sub)schema(s)

� resemblance links (phonologically and / or semantically similar micro-constrctions that are not paradigmatically related)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 27

PARENTAL INHERITANCEAND PEER PRESSURE

Example: nonce verbs experiment (Knooihuizen & Strik 2014)

� Irregular (‘strong’) inflection suggests peer pressure

� Regular (‘weak’) inflection suggests:a hierarchicalrelation (inheritance from more schematic parent) or peer pressure (from the largest group of peers)

� Similar experiment at introductory lx course HU Berlin

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 28

Zu schrerben

Einführung Sprachwissenschaft_ GK Woche 3

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perfekt

EXAMPLE: ZUSCHRERBEN

� Non-existing, but plausible German verb

� Perfect: � mostly weak inflection (hat geschrerbt): parents and / or peers

� mixed inflection (e.g. hat geschrierbt, hat geschrarbt): parentsand / or peers

� strong inflection:� hat geschrierben: general preference for /i:/ in preterites and perfects

> an “ inflectional multi-tool” (Knooihuizen & Strik 2014: 194)?

� hat / ist geschrorben: peers

� ist geschrorben: interesting because only a single peer (but withhigh token frequency): sterben ‘to die’, with ‘be-perfect’

� verbs with ‘have-perfect’ (werben ‘to advertise’, werfen ‘to throw’): a few more types, but much lower token frequency

� sterben: 22,012 tokens in Deutsches Textarkiv

� werben: 762 tokens in Deutsches Textarkiv

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 30

INTRAPARADIGMATIC LINKS

� Linking complex words with the same base (< Booij 2013: 264), e.g.

� inflectional paradigms

� “affix substitution” pairs:� alpin-ism – alpin-ist

� commun-ism – commun-ist

� fasc-ism – fasc-ist

[a-ism]Ni � [SEM]i ≈ [a-ist]Nj � [PERSON involved in SEMi]j

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 31

INTERPARADIGMATIC LINKS

� Linking complex words that inherit from the same schema(s), e.g

� declensional and conjugational classes

� adverbs in –ly derived from adjectives

[[a]Ai ly]ADVj � [SEMi]j ≈ [[b]Ak ly]ADVl � [SEMk]l ≈ (∞)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 32

RESEMBLANCE LINKS

�Linking micro-constructions of similar form that are not interparadigmatically related� e.g. English preterite had (Bybee 2010)

�Linking micro-constructions with similarsemantics, e.g.� motion verbs� colour adjectives� mass nouns

� May be involved in multiple source constructions (De Smet et al. 2013), e.g. Norwegian possessor doubling (Norde 2012)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 33

PROPERTIES OF CONSTRUCTIONS

1. Connectivity

� Multiple links to both parents and peers may help preserve a particular micro-cxn. This is true for, e.g.:� Micro-constructions with many peers (of all three

kinds)� Micro-constructions with multiple parents� ‘Degeneracy’ (Van de Velde 2014)

2. Frequency

� cognitive representations are sensitive to experience, e.g. frequency of use; “the conserving effect of token frequency” (Bybee 2010: 24)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 34

FREQUENCY: HYPOTHESES

Type / token Token freq high Token freq low

Type freq high • A new schema may emerge: grammaticalcxnzn

• Entrenchment of a schema

• Schema may bemaintained, withno, or low productivity

Type freq low • Entrenchment of individual micro-cxn (lexicalcxnzn)

• Irregular or suppletivepatterns

• Loss

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 35


36

-ER IN OLD SWEDISH

(1225-1375)

Concordial case

riker konunger oc wældogher

rich-MASC.SG.NOM king-MASC.SG.NOM and powerful-MASC.SG.NOM

‘a rich and powerful king’

æn esaw wardh onder oc awundzsiwker

but Esau became evil- MASC.SG.NOM and jealous- MASC.SG.NOM

‘But Esau became evil and jealous’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 37

-ER IN MIDDLE SWEDISH

(1375-1526)

Loss of concordial case; only adjective inflected

thiit kom oc een vnger konung

tither came also a young-MASCMSG.NOM king-Ø

‘A young king came there as well’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 38

-ER IN EARLY MODERN SWEDISH

(1526-1732)

Adjectival inflections still sporadically found, often in “erroneous” contexts

Judith var en riker änka

Judith was a rich-er widow

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 39

-ER IN MODERN SWEDISH

-Er retained in adjectival noun constructions; emphatic, intensifying function (mostly adjectives expressing an emotional judgment)

� en dummer ‘a stupid one’ (< dum ‘stupid’)

� en fjäsker ‘a fawning one’ (< fjäsk ‘fawning behaviour’)

� en slarver ‘a messy one’ (< slarv ‘mess’)

� Toker, Blyger, Prosit, Trötter, Glader, Butter, Kloker

� (< tok ‘fool’; blyg ‘bashful’, trött ‘tired’, glad ‘happy’, OSw butt‘grumpy’, klok ‘wise’)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 40

-ER: STAGE I

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 41

modifyingadjective

cxn

[[a]adjer]MASC.SG.NOM [[a]adjan]MASC.SG.ACC [[a]adjs]MASC.SG.GEN

adjectivalnoun cxn

-ER: STAGE II

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 42

modifyingadjective

cxn

[[a]adjer]MASC.SG.ACC

en blinder ‘a

blind one’

en mechtiger

‘a mighty

one’

en dummer

‘a stupid one’…

adjectivalnoun cxn

-ER: STAGE III

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 43

mod. adjective

cxn

adjectivalnoun cxn

[ADJ]N [[ADJ]er]N

en fjäsker

‘a fawning one’

en dummer

‘a stupid one’

en slarver ‘a

messy one’

-ER: STAGE IV (?)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 44

mod. adjective

cxn

ADJ]N

adjectivalnoun cxn

[[ADJ]er]N

en fjäsker

‘a fawning one’

en dummer

‘a stupid one’

en slarver ‘a

messy one’

ANALYSIS

� Deflexion: loss of nominative schema� including loss of nominative in adjectival nouncxns

� Small cluster of similar adjectives retains –er

� -Er has developed into a “constructionalmarker” (Booij 2010):

� limited productivity

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 45

ANALYSIS (2)link types involved

� inheritance links: lost in deflexion

� intraparadigmatic links: lost in deflexion

� interparadigmatic links: some retained

� resemblance links: crucial� negative human

characteristics

� some antonyms stupid’ –‘clever’; ‘tired’ –‘energetic’)

connectivity andfrequency

� low connectivity

� fairly high token frequency

� Low type frequency

� -> cluster of lexicalconstructions

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 46


47

AFFIXOIDS

Affixoids are “not yet affixes because they correspond to lexemes, that is, unbound forms, but their meaning differ from that when used as independent lexemes.“ (Booij 2010: 57)

Example: Intensifying prefixoids

� Dutch bloed ‘blood’ and steen ‘stone’

� as a noun in simile Noun-Adjective compounds / prefixoid:� bloedrood ‘blood red; deep red’� steenhard ‘stone hard; very hard’

� as a prefixoid only: � bloedserieus ‘dead serious’ (? ‘as serious as death’)� steenrijk ‘stone rich’ (?? ‘as rich as a stone’)

Coglingdays 2014 4812/12/2014

FROM SIMILE TO INTENSIFIER

� Adapted from Booij & Hüning (2014), based on Construction Morphology Framework (Booij 2010, 2013; Norde & Van Goethem fc.)

1) [[a]Ni [b]Aj]Ak � [as SEMj as SEMi / very SEMj]k→

2) [{a}INT [b]Ai]Aj � [very SEMi]j

3) [[steen] [hard]] � [as hard as stone]

4) [{steen} [rijk]] � [very rich]

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 49

DIMINUTIVEINTENSIFYINGPREFIXOIDS

� existing prefixoid + diminutive suffix� Prefixoid < Noun: bloedjeserieus (blood-DIM-serious) ‘dead

serious’, steentjerijk (stone-DIM-rich) ‘stone rich’

� Prefixoid < Verb: drijfjenat ‘drip-DIM-wet’, kotsjemisselijk‘vomit-DIM-sick’

� Prefixoid < Adverb: klaartjewakker ‘clear-DIM-awake’

� Prefixoid < Preposition: none

� Prefixoid < second of 2 nouns: schathemeltjerijk ‘treasure-heaven-DIM-rich’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 50

OTHER DIMINUTIVEFORMATIONS

� prefix + diminutive: supertjeblij (super-DIM-happy)

� diminutive of “pseudo-compounds” (De Haas & Trommelen (1993:436)) compound elements that do notoccur as free forms: tjokjevol (*tjok-DIM-full) ‘choke full’,morsjedood (*mors-DIM-dead) ‘very dead’,starnakeltjezat (*starnakel-DIM-drunk) ‘very drunk’

� nouns that cannot normally be diminutivised: doodjesaai‘dead-DIM-boring’.

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 51

FREQUENCIES (1)

� Morris 2013: 311 out of 696 intensifying prefixoids occurin the diminutive

� No relation to frequency of the non-diminutive cxn in NLCOW2012-00X� ijzertjesterk ‘iron-DIM-strong’ (3) – ijzersterk ‘iron-strong’

(4,464)

� brandjenieuwsgierig ‘burn-DIM-curious’ (3) -brandnieuwsgierig ‘burn-curious’ (1)

� keitjehard ‘boulder-dim-strong’ – keihard (17,404)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 52

FREQUENCIES (2)

Number of hits for eachcompound

Compounds

Over 500 8

100-500 26

10-100 94

Under 10 183

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 53

many hapaxes: large potentialproductivity (Baayen 2009)

FORM (1)

� Diminutive form in most cases phonologicallyconditioned, as are “normal” diminutives:� vlijmpjescherp (scalpel-DIM-sharp) ‘razor sharp’

� zonnetjeklaar (sun-DIM-clear) ‘crystal clear’

� blaadjestil (leaf-DIM-quiet) ‘very quiet’

� but also: bladjestil

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 54

FORM (2)

� 23% of the diminutive cxns have plural forms: aapjestrots ‘monkey-DIM proud’, beertjessterk ‘bear-DIM

strong’ torentjeshoog ‘tower-DIM high’� linking vowel (apetrots, beresterk) may have been

interpreted as plural –en (pronounced /ə/)

� not true for all cases (cf. torenhoog)

� noun-DIM-noun compounds usually require linking s: bloemetjesjurk, *bloemetjejurk ‘flower-DIM dress’, stoeltjeslift, *stoeltjelift ‘chair-DIM lift’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 55

MEANING (1)

� Problem 1: do diminutive forms have diminutivemeaning?� possibly: poeslief / poesjelief ‘very sweet (as sweet as a cat)’

/ ‘very sweet (as sweet as a kitten’)

� definitely not: kaarsrecht / kaarsjerecht ‘candle straight’ (?? as straight as a small candle)

� Problem 2: is steentjehard (stone-DIM-hard) harder thansteenhard?� Some native speakers: yes

� Other native speakers: no, it means ‘a bit hard’

� Yet other native speakers: mostly pragmatic function: ‘Do nottake what I say too seriously’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 56

MEANING (2)

� In other words: can diminutives be seen as “reinforcement” (similar to emphatic co-ordination)?

� Or do they have a mitigating effect? Compare:

1. Joaquin is een beetje strontje vervelend. Is moe maar wilt niet slapen.

‘Joaquin is a bit shit-DIM annoying. Is tired but does notwant to sleep.’

2. Ik word ondertussen echt he-le-maal stapeltje gek van dit fucking kutprobleem.

‘Meanwhile this fucking wretched problem is driving me really totally pile-DIM crazy’

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 57

DIMINUTIVE SIMILES

ook een auto immuunziekte, waardoor de lever ook op hol geslagen is (…) waardoor ze nu dus ook kanarietjegeel is. (canary-DIM-yellow)

‘also an autoimmune disorder, which made its liver run wild, so now it is canary yellow as well’

http://forum.fok.nl/topic/1322742/2/25 (topic: sick cat)

→ Diminutive schema may be expanding to other Noun-Adjective

compounds

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 58

CONSTRUCTIONALSCHEMAS (1)GENERAL SCHEMAS:

� The diminutive prefixoid construction, to account for the formation of new diminutive intensifying prefixoidconstructions

[{a DIM}INT [b]Ai]Aj � [[VERY [SEMi]]j

a: N, V, Adj, Adv, P, prefix, bound roots

� The diminutive construction, to account for:� phonologically conditioned allomorphy of the diminutive prefixoid� meaning?

[[a]XiDIM]Nj � [SMALL [ENTITY RELATED TO SEMi]]j

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 59

CONSTRUCTIONALSCHEMAS (2)

SUBSCHEMAS:

� For the diminutive intensifying prefixoid construction: subschemas specifying the part of speech from which the prefixoid derives, e.g.:

[{aN DIM}INT [b]Ai]Aj � [VERY SEMi]j

� These subschemas are relevant, as some subschemasare more productive than others

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 60


CONSTRUCTIONAL IDIOMS

� Schemas in which the intensifier is specified, e.g.:

[{bloed}INT [b]Ai]Aj � [VERY SEMi]j

≈

[{bloedje}INT [b]Ai]Aj � [VERY SEMi]j

≈: intraparadigmatic relationship

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 61


� Constructs: maximally specific:� bloedheet, bloedjeheet ‘very hot’

� keihard, keitjehard ‘very hard’

� Problem: constructs may be subject to “lexicalconstructionalization” (Traugott & Trousdale 2013):

� This may ‘weaken’ the paradigmatic relationship

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 62

63

intensifyingprefixoid cxn

V subschemadrijfnat ‘drip

wet’

N subschema

bloedheet‘blood hot’

keihard‘boulder hard’

…

diminutiveintensifying

prefixoid cxn

V subschemadrijfjenat

N subschema

bloedjeheet

Keitjehard

tonnetjerond(barrel-DIM-

round)...

diminutive cxn

—: hierarchical relation

----: intraparadigmatic

relation

….: interparadigmatic

relation12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014

ANALYSIS (1)

1: Oldest attestation in DBNL: muisjesstil (1883): (‘mice-DIM quiet’)

� ‘very quiet’ (intensifier) or ‘quiet as little mice’ (simile)?

2: From such micro-cxns, the pattern extended to other micro-constructions which are intraparadigmaticallyrelated to “non-diminutive” intensifying prefixoid cxns(e.g. bloedjeheet ‘blood-DIM-hot’; drijfjenat ‘drip-DIM-wet)

3: Rapid increase of productivity, lots of hapaxes, creative formations such as modder-botertje-vet (‘mud-butter-DIM-fat’)

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 64

ANALYSIS (2)

4: Later still, a schema was generalized over these micro-cxns, sanctioning cxns that are not intraparadigmaticallyrelated to “non-diminutive” intensifying prefixoid cxns(e.g. tonnetjerond ‘barrel-DIM-round’ / *tonrond)

5: This schema is extended to similes: kanarietjegeel

6: Future: a diminutive noun-adjective schema, withintensifying and simile subschemas?

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 65

ANALYSIS (3)link types involved

� inheritance links: todiminutive schema; diminutive intensifyingschema emerges at later stage

� intraparadigmatic links: to non-diminutives

� interparadigmatic links: increasing

� resemblance links: extension to simile cxns

connectivity andfrequency

� high connectivity(multiple parents, manypeers)

� varying token frequency

� High type frequency

� rise of a new schema

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 66

CONCLUSIONS

� Peers are crucial in both rise, maintenance and loss of constructions and schemas

� Even when parents (schemas) are lost, peers may secure maintenance of micro-constructions (Swedish –er)

� When there is a large “pool” of potential(interparadigmatic) peers, a new schema may ariserapidly (Dutch diminutive prefixoids)

� Other data sets will no doubt reveal more correlations

� Quantitative approaches (Hilpert 2013 style) maycorroborate qualitative observations

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 67


68

Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, Anke & Merja Kytö (eds) Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook, 900-919). Berlin: De Gruyter.

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in construction grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 255-273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Booij, Geert, & Mathias Hüning. 2014. Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman, & Gijsbert Rutten (eds) Extending the scope of construction grammar, 77-105. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Bybee; Joan, 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cappelle, Bert. 2014. Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. In Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds) Extending the scope of construction grammar, 251-281. Berlin: De Gruyter.

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 69

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds). 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Special issue of Studies in Language 37:3.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hilpert, martin. 2013. Constructional change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks. The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kay, Paul. 2013. The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Graeme Trousdale (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32-48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Knooihuizen, R. and Strik, O. (2014). Relative productivity potentials of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica, 35:1–28.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 70

Morris, Caroline. 2013. Bekje-af, knettertjegek en dolletjesgelukkig. The use and development of intensifying diminutive compounds in Dutch within the framework of Construction Morphology. MA-thesis, University of Groningen.

Norde, Muriel. 2012. On the origin(s) of the possessor doubling construction in Norwegian. In Van der Liet, Henk & Muriel Norde(eds.) Language for its own sake. Essays on Language and Literature offered to Harry Perridon, 327-358. Amsterdam: ScandinavischInstituut. (= Amsterdam Contributions to Scandinavian Studies 8).

Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale (ms.). Exaptation and constructional change.

Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. fc. Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids. A corpus-based analysis of ‘giant’ in German and Swedish. To appear in Lingvisticae Investigationes.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van de Velde, Freek. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds) Extending the scope of construction grammar, 141-179. Berlin: De Gruyter.

12/12/2014Coglingdays 2014 71

Documents

On parents and peers in constructional networks