25.494, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax: Hilpert (2013)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-494. Wed Jan 29 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.494, Review: Historical Linguistics; Syntax: Hilpert (2013)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: 
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Monica Macaulay <monica at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/
					
					

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:15:35
From: Stefan Hartmann [hartmast at uni-mainz.de]
Subject: Constructional Change in English

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-494.html&submissionid=21267550&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=21267550


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-2443.html

AUTHOR: Martin  Hilpert
TITLE: Constructional Change in English
SUBTITLE: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax
SERIES TITLE: Studies in English Language
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Stefan Hartmann, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

SUMMARY

Martin Hilpert’s “Constructional Change in English” presents a constructionist
approach to language change. More specifically, Hilpert argues that the notion
of constructional change provides a valuable analytical concept in assessing
processes of linguistic change. Three corpus-based case studies from the
domains of English allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax demonstrate that the
idea of constructional change can substantially contribute to a deeper
understanding of the diachronic developments in question.

The book is divided into six chapters. The first two chapters introduce the
concept of constructional change as well as the corpora and analytical methods
used in the study, while Chapters 3 through 5 are dedicated to case studies of
English allomorphy, morphology, and syntax, respectively. Chapter 6 then sums
up the empirical findings and theoretical considerations and points out some
desiderata for further research.

In Chapter 1, the notion of constructional change is defined and some of its
implications are outlined. According to Hilpert, “Constructional change
selectively seizes a conventionalized form-meaning pair of a language,
altering it in terms of its form, its function, any aspect of its frequency,
its distribution in the linguistic community, or any combination of these” (p.
16). On this definition, constructional change is not coextensive with either
grammaticalization or language change. With regard to grammaticalization,
Hilpert points out that the notion of constructional change includes processes
of lexicalization, syntactic changes such as the loss of V2 in English,
processes within derivational morphology, and processes of frequency change,
which all do not instantiate grammaticalization processes. On the other hand,
certain grammaticalization processes go beyond constructional change. For
example, the emergence of the English modal auxiliaries (e.g. “might”,
“could”, “would”) can be seen as a case of paradigm formation, in which a
macro-construction in the sense of Traugott (2008) arises not from one single
constructional change, but as the sum total of several low-level
constructional changes. Delimiting constructional change from language change,
Hilpert points out that many instances of language change do not seize
individual constructions, but rather apply across constructions. For example,
a sound change such as the Great Vowel Shift applies across all word classes
and syntactic contexts.

Chapter 2 is dedicated to “Data and methodology”. First, the corpora exploited
for the case studies are introduced, each with a brief comment on their size,
the represented text types, and their usefulness for the study of
constructional change. Then, the statistical methods used to assess the
corpora are discussed. Apart from well-established measures of frequency and
productivity, Hilpert uses Variability-based Neighbor Clustering (VNC), binary
logistic regression, Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (HCFA), and
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). VNC is a bottom-up method to identify stages
in diachronic corpora. The VNC algorithm computes the similarity of temporally
adjacent data points, using a measure of dispersion such as the standard
deviation or the variation coefficient (cf. also Gries & Hilpert 2008, 2012).
The two most similar data points are then merged, which is repeated until all
data points have been merged. The data produced by the algorithm can then
inform a more motivated periodization than would be possible by mere
“eyeballing” of a frequency plot. Moreover, VNC can also be used to detect
outliers in fine-grained historical data.

Binary logistic regression is a multivariate method to study how speakers
choose between two alternatives, e.g. between the “will” and “be going to”
futures. While this method is usually applied to analyze synchronic phenomena,
Hilpert shows that including time as an additional binary factor into the
regression model can shed light on diachronic processes. For example, in his
regression model for the two future variants, the factor of time, despite
having no main effect in and of itself, interacts significantly with the
variable of register. This points to a diachronic leveling process of the
register-specific difference between “will” and “be going to”.

Compared to binary logistic regression, HCFA, which is a multivariate
extension of the chi-squared test, takes a more exploratory approach. The
basic goal of HCFA is to detect similarities between subjects within a
population with regard to several variables by performing multiple chi-squared
tests. Applied to constructional change, HCFA can determine the prototype
structure of a construction and its variants. For example, Hilpert’s analysis
of preposition stranding (e.g. “That’s what I was looking *for*”) in the
Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English (DCPSE) reveals that between
1960 and 1990, preposition stranding spreads into more elevated registers and
diversifies syntactically in informal registers.

MDS is another multivariate method to detect mutual similarities between
entities within a population. Unlike binary logistic regression and HCFA,
however, it reduces the high dimensionality of a multivariate data set to a
smaller number of dimensions (typically two) by calculating distances between
each possible pair of entities. These distances are then submitted to a
scaling algorithm, which transforms the measurements into a set of x- and
y-coordinates. Thus, the similarities and dissimilarities between different
entities can now be visualized in a two-dimensional plot. Comparing a
diachronic series of MDS analyses allows for detecting patterns of change and
continuity with regard to a specific construction. For example, Hilpert’s
analysis of 44 complement-taking predicates such as “suggest” or “hope” in the
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) between 1860 and 2000 reveals
three clusters, which remain relatively stable over time. However, some
individual predicates change in their complementation behaviour, and all three
verb clusters exhibit a growing preference for “-ing”-clause complements.

Chapter 3 introduces the first case study. The development of English first
and second person possessive determiners (“mine/thine” > “my/thy”) is
investigated on the basis of data from the Penn and Helsinki Parsed Corpus of
Middle English (PPCME) and the Penn and Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern
English (PPCEME) using Variability-based Neighbor Clustering (VNC) and linear
mixed-effects modeling. Hilpert finds main effects for the variables of time,
phonological environment, stress pattern, priming of the n-variant in the
preceding context, formality, and gender. Importantly, however, the variable
of grammatical person yields no significant effect. Consequently, Hilpert
argues that the change from “mine” to “my” and from “thine” to “thy” should be
viewed as one single constructional change, suggesting that speakers formed a
constructional generalization over these two linguistic forms. Furthermore, an
investigation of the relative frequency distributions of the right-side
collocations of the n-variant shows that the prediction that frequent
collocates are more resistant to change does not always hold, indicating that
“constructional change can follow very idiosyncratic pathways that are subject
to multiple interacting factors.” (p. 106)

Chapter 4 analyzes the diachronic development of the word-formation pattern
“V-ment” based on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and using Baayen’s (e.g.
2009) productivity measures as well as Variability-based Neighbor Clustering
(VNC) and Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (HCFA). Drawing on the
results of the VNC analysis, Hilpert divides the corpus into five stages. The
development of the V-ment construction over time is analyzed by comparing the
types yielded by the HCFA for each of the five periods. The overall findings
indicate that the developments are not strictly unidirectional, which is why
the diachronic change of the V-ment pattern cannot be seen as a case of
grammaticalization. The range of possible host classes becomes narrower over
time, but this narrowing is not systematic, as the brief success of
deadjectival derivatives such as “merriment” shows. Hilpert argues that the
concept of constructional change provides a way to come to grips with the
idiosyncrasies of these historical developments. Moreover, the development of
the V-ment construction, in Hilpert’s view, illustrates the necessity of
constructional subschemas (cf. Booij 2010) as a conceptual tool for the study
of word-formation processes. He argues that the V-ment construction cannot be
regarded as a single word-formation process; instead, different subschemas of
the construction rise and fall in productivity.

Chapter 5 deals with constructional change in syntax, illustrated by a case
study on concessive parentheticals (e.g. “Power, *although important,* is not
everything”). Drawing on data from the TIME corpus of American English and the
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), Hilpert’s analysis addresses two
questions: First, are concessive parentheticals derived from full concessive
clauses (the reduction hypothesis) or did they emerge in analogy to
parenthetical structures with temporal or conditional conjunctions such as
“while” and “if” (the analogy hypothesis)? A synchronic comparison of
conditional and concessive parentheticals with “if” and “while” in the TIME
corpus yields no confirming evidence for the analogy hypothesis and only
suggestive evidence in favor of the reduction hypothesis. Second, he asks if
concessive parentheticals constitute a “construction family” or if a larger
generalization, a “macro-construction”, has emerged over the past two
centuries. To address this question, a Multi-dimensional Scaling (MDS)
analysis is performed with data from the COHA. More specifically, concessive
parentheticals with “although”, “though”, “if”, and “while” are investigated.
The macro-construction hypothesis predicts a mutual assimilation of the four
conjunctions. The results, however, suggest that the truth lies in between the
two hypotheses: While concessive parentheticals with “though” and “although”
indeed become more similar in their usage, the changes undergone by
parentheticals with “while” and “if” are more idiosyncratic. These empirical
findings are relevant for the theoretical question at which level of
abstraction constructions can be posited. Hilpert argues that “[i]n order to
find ‘a construction’, that is, a generalization that speakers make, it is
necessary to find islands of regularity in the variation of the data set” (p.
203).

The right level of abstraction for a construction is also one of the main
points addressed in the conclusion (Chapter 6). Furthermore, Hilpert discusses
why a constructional perspective is necessary to adequately describe and
account for the empirical findings presented throughout the book. Moreover, he
points to desiderata for further research, most importantly suggesting an
interactional perspective on constructional change at the discourse level and
calling for a common analytical vocabulary in Construction Grammar and
interactional linguistics.

EVALUATION

In recent years, a variety of studies have shown that important insights can
be gained from applying a Construction Grammar (CxG) approach to diachronic
data (e.g. Bergs & Diewald (eds.) 2008). In a usage-based constructionist
perspective, “language is always situated in context, which also implies a
connection between linguistic change and language use” (Fried 2013:419).
Martin Hilpert’s monograph can be considered an important step towards a
better understanding of this connection. Hilpert makes a convincing case for
the viability of the notion of constructional change in diachronic
linguistics. Far from being just another addition to an already convoluted
inventory of technical terms, the concept of constructional change allows for
an adequate description and explanation even of highly non-systematic,
idiosyncratic processes of change (cf. also Hilpert 2011:69f.). Furthermore,
it can help answer one of the key questions of historical linguistics: “What
is actually changing? Forms, functions, form–function mappings, rules, and/or
exemplars?” (Hruschka et al. 2009:468) Hilpert’s considerations on the
relation between constructional change on the one hand and grammaticalization
and language change on the other make clear that constructions in the CxG
sense are one, but not the only domain of change.

Concerning the methodological approach, this book sets a new benchmark for
future corpus-based studies of language change. Most importantly, Hilpert
shows how cutting-edge corpus-analytical methods can be applied to refine the
key notion of ‘construction’, especially with regard to the level of
abstraction at which constructions can be posited. Well-established
quantitative measures and statistical methods such as Binary Logistic
Regression are used alongside recently developed ones such as
Variability-based Neighbor Clustering (cf. Gries & Hilpert 2008, 2012). In all
cases, the choice of both the corpora and the analytical methods is
well-justified, and the logic behind each method is explained in an
intuitively plausible way.

All in all, Hilpert’s book outlines a highly promising approach to the study
of linguistic change in a constructionist perspective and is therefore highly
recommended to anyone interested in historical linguistics, Construction
Grammar, and usage-based approaches to language in general. Moreover, it has
the potential to initiate important discussions in the field of (diachronic)
Construction Grammar. To be sure, the notion of constructional change will be
subject to debate as well as to further refinement in future research. For
example, it will be particularly interesting to investigate how constructional
change relates to constructionalization, i.e. the appearance of a new
conventional form/meaning pairing as a product of a sequence of constructional
changes (cf. Trousdale 2013:32).

REFERENCES

Baayen, R. Harald. (2009) Corpus Linguistics in Morphology. Morphological
Productivity. In: Lüdeling, Anke; Kytö, Merja (eds.): Corpus Linguistics. An
International Handbook. Vol. 2. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter (HSK, 29.2),
899-919.

Bergs, Alexander; Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). (2008) Constructions and Language
Change. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and
Monographs, 194).

Booij, Geert E. (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Fried, Mirjam. (2013) Principles of Constructional Change. In: Hoffmann,
Thomas; Trousdale, Graeme (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 419-437.

Gries, Stefan Th; Hilpert, Martin. (2008). The Identification of Stages in
Diachronic Corpora. Variability-Based Neighbor Clustering. In: Corpora 3,
59-81.

Gries, Stefan Th; Hilpert, Martin. (2012). Variability-Based Neighbor
Clustering. A Bottom-Up Approach to Periodization in Historical Linguistics.
In: Nevalainen, Terttu; Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.): The Oxford Handbook
of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 134-144.

Hilpert, Martin. (2011). Was ist Konstruktionswandel? In: Lasch, Alexander;
Ziem, Alexander (eds.): Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und
Lösungsansätze. Tübingen: Stauffenburg (Stauffenburg Linguistik, 58), 59-75.

Hruschka, Daniel J.; Christiansen, Morten H.; Blythe, Richard A.; Croft,
William; Heggarty, Paul; Mufwene, Salikoko S.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B.;
Poplack, Shana. (2009). Building Social Cognitive Models of Language Change.
In: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 464-469.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2008). Grammaticalization, Constructions and the
Incremental Development of Language. Suggestions from the Development of
Degree Modifiers in English. In: Eckhart, Regine; Jäger, Gerhard; Veenstra,
Tonjes (eds.): Variation, Selection, Development. Probing the Evolutionary
Model of Language Change. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics.
Studies and Monographs, 197), 219-250.

Trousdale, Graeme. (2013). Gradualness in Language Change. A Constructional
Perspective. In: Ramat, Anna G.; Mauri, Caterina; Molinelli, Piera (eds.):
Synchrony and Diachrony. A Dynamic Interface. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series, 133), 27-42.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Stefan Hartmann is a PhD student in historical linguistics at the University
of Mainz, Germany. He is currently conducting a corpus-based study on the
diachronic change of German nominalization patterns. Apart from historical
linguistics and corpus linguistics, his research interests include Cognitive
Linguistics, Construction Grammar, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and
language evolution research.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-494	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/