Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.30–63

Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks

Two sides of the same coin?

ORCID logo | University of Edinburgh | Concordia University
Recent models of constructional networks combine vertical links between schemas and their subtypes with horizontal links between constructions at the same level of abstraction. It remains unclear, however, whether vertical and horizontal analyses express distinct information about the network, or whether one can be reformulated in terms of the other. In this paper, it is argued that vertical and horizontal links do not encode distinct cognitive mechanisms but that they are notational variants for representing a common notion of constructional similarity. The practical advantages of each notation are outlined, and some potential objections to the present account are addressed.
Keywords: constructional network, construction grammar, vertical links, horizontal links, similarity, schemas, inheritance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A blurred distinction: Previous accounts of vertical and horizontal links
    • 2.1Vertical (inheritance) links
    • 2.2The allostructions model
    • 2.3The paradigmatic model
  • 3.The proposal: Vertical and horizontal links as notational variants
    • 3.1Similarity as a common conceptual ground
    • 3.2Notational variants
    • 3.3Advantages of each notation
    • 3.4The nature of schemas
  • 4.Some possible objections (and replies)
    • 4.1What about horizontal syntagmatic relations?
    • 4.2Aren’t some things only encoded at the level of the schema?
    • 4.3Do (some) horizontal links express contrast rather than similarity?
    • 4.4Is it only strong horizontal links that can give rise to a schema?
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22011.ung
References (65)
References
Ambridge, B. (2020). Abstractions made of exemplars or ‘You’re all right, and I’ve changed my mind’: Response to commentators. First Language, 40 (5–6), 640–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Audring, J. (2019). Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12 (3), 274–296. 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, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–50). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3), 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. A. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 1–59). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Budts, S., & Petré, P. (2020). Putting connections centre stage in diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 317–351). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistics Society, 34 1, 421–435.Google 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
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions, 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B., Travassos, P. F., Mota, N. A., Costa, M. G. da, Nunes, L. F., Martins, G. L., & Vieira, M. dos S. M. (2021). Constructional variation – unveiling aspects of linguistic knowledge: Interview with Bert Cappelle. Revista Da Anpoll, 52 1, 258–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. (2020). The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. In C. Fedriani & M. Napoli (Eds.), The diachrony of ditransitives (pp. 137–168). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2008). The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (4), 931–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Diewald, G. (2020). Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 278–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (7), 301–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferlež, J., & Gams, M. (2004). Shortest-path semantic distance measure in WordNet v2.0. Informatica, 28 (4), 385–390.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2021). Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, 13 (1), 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. (2022). Emergent categories: Quantifying analogically derived similarity in usage. In K. Krawczak, B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, & M. Grygiel (Eds.), Analogy and contrast in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 245–282). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52 (2), 125–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyselinck, E. (2018). The role of expressivity and productivity in (re)shaping the constructional network : A corpus-based study into synchronic and diachronic variation in the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction in 19th to 21st Century Dutch. Ghent University PhD dissertation.
(2020). (Re)shaping the constructional network: Modeling shifts and reorganizations in the network hierarchy. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 107–140). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. (2016). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10 1, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word Grammar. Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51 (3), 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2020). The texture of the lexicon: Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). The metaphoric and metonymic poles. In R. Jakobson & M. Halle (Eds.), Fundamentals of language (2nd ed., pp. 90–96). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1999). Pathways of the brain: The neurocognitive basis of language. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2006). On the continuous debate about discreteness. Cognitive Linguistics, 17 (1), 107–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Constructions and constructional meaning. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 225–267). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. (2020). Converging variations and the emergence of horizontal links: To-contraction in American English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 243–274). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (1), 54–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percillier, M. (2020). Allostructions, homostructions or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 213–242). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D. (2020). What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 1, 283–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–36). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E. (2021). Horizontal links within and between paradigms: The constructional network of reported directives in German. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle, & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 185–218). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the node and the network – Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2020a). Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 69–103). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Why we avoid the ‘multiple inheritance’ issue in Usage-based cognitive Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 1, 320–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E. (Eds.). (2020). Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Touretzky, D. S. (1986). The mathematics of inheritance systems. Pitman.Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2023). Structural priming in the grammatical network. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, D., & Powers, D. M. W. (2005). Measuring semantic similarity in the taxonomy of WordNet. In V. Estivill-Castro (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Australasian Computer Science Conference – Volume 38 (pp. 315–322). Australian Computer Society.Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2019). Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 167–212). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Boas, Hans C., Jaakko Leino & Benjamin Lyngfelt
2024. Constructionist views on Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 september 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.