2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 29, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines the semantic structuring of a paradigm of 89 minimizers, i.e., nouns that reinforce sentential negation in present-day Netherlandic Dutch, such as ‘meter’ in ‘not to trust for a meter’. Cosine distances are computed on the basis of the predicates the minimizers combine with in a sample of 100 tokens downloaded from the Dutch Web corpus 2014 (nlTenTen14) and clustered according to the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) algorithm into nine semantic clusters. The clusters largely correspond to semantic categories such as taboo terms or units of money. This suggests that, in general, minimizers belonging to the same semantic domain are combined with a similar (core) set of predicates. Based on the shared predicates per cluster, we detect signs of analogical attraction between minimizers or, conversely, competition. Crucially, low silhouette widths enable us to identify outliers in their respective clusters, for instance, minimizing nouns that exhibit signs of context expansion, as shown by their combination with semantically non-harmonious verbs. As such, this paper provides a synchronic snapshot of the semantic processes involved in (incipient) grammaticalization of minimizing nouns and, more in general, it illustrates how distributional semantics offers a heuristic to analyze the structure of a network of comparable micro-constructions.

© Margot Van den Heede & Peter Lauwers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.3.003.HEED
2024-12-01
2024-12-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic (= Constructional approaches to language 8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Breitbarth, A., C.Lucas & D.Willis. (2013). Incipient Jespersen’s Cycle: the (non-) grammaticalization of new negative markers. In: J.Fleischer & H.Simon (eds.), Comparing Diachronies. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 141–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Divjak, D. & N.Fieller (2014). Cluster analysis. Finding structure in linguistic data. In: D.Glynn & J. A.Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 405–441.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Divjak, D. & S. T.Gries (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory2(1), 23–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Firth, J.R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics, 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Gries, S. T. & A.Stefanowitsch (2010). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In: S.Rice & J.Newman (eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive / functional research. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 73–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. PhD thesis, Ghent University.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Hansen, M.B.Mosegaard & J.Visconti. (2009). On the diachrony of “reinforced” negation in French and Italian. In: C.Rossari, C.Ricci & A.Spiridon (eds.), Grammaticalization andpragmatics: Facts, approaches, theoretical issues. Bingley (UK): Emerald, 137–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Hansen, M.B. Mosegaard. (2013). Negation in the history of French. In D.Willis, C.Lucas & A.Breitbarth (eds.), The history of negation in the languages of Europe and the Mediterranean. Volume 1: Case studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 51–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics37(6), 1043-1068.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Heylen, K., T.Wielfaert, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts (2015). Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua157, 153–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal. In: W.Bisang, N. P.Himmelmann & B.Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 21–42.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoeksema, J. (2001). Rapid change among expletive polarity items. In: L. J.Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the 14th international conference on historical linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 175–186.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoeksema, J. (2002). Minimaliseerders in het Standaardnederlands. Tabu32, 105–174.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoeksema, J. (2003). Partitivity, degrees and polarity. VerbumXXV, 81–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoeksema, J. (2019). Taboo terms and their grammar. In: K.Allen (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160–179.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaufman, L. & P. J.Rousseeuw (1987). Clustering by means of medoids. In: Y.Dodge (ed.), Statistical data analysis based on the L1-norm and related methods. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 405–416.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaufman, L. & P. J.Rousseeuw (2005). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Hoboken (N.J.): Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Keller, R. (1994). Sprachwandel: von der unsichtbaren Handinder Sprache. 2., uberarb. und erw. Aufl. Tübingen: Francke.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: a case study. Linguistics54(2), 149–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Perek, F. (2018). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: a distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14(1). 65–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Perek, F. & M.Hilpert (2017). A distributional semantic approach to the periodization of change in the productivity of constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics22, 490–520.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Postma, G. (2001). Negative polarity and the syntax of taboo. In: J.Hoeksema, H.Rullmann, V.Sanchez-Valencia, T.van der Wouden (eds.), Perspectives onnegation and polarity items. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 283–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of computational and applied mathematics20, 53–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Stefanowitsch, A. & S. T.Gries. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International journal of corpus linguistics8(2), 209–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language65(1), 31–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Traugott, E. C. & G.Trousdale (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Turney, P. & P.Pantel (2010). From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal for Artificial Intelligence37, 141–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Usino, W., A. S.Prabuwono, K. H. S.Allehaibi, A.Bramantoro, A.Hasniaty & W.Amaldi (2019). Document similarity detection using k-means and cosine distance. International journal of advanced computer science and applications10, 165–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Van den Heede, M. & P.Lauwers (2021). Het interesseert me geen ene je-weet-wel. Minimaliserende strategieën in het hedendaagse Nederlandse Nederlands. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis75(1), 239–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Van den Heede, M. & P.Lauwers (2023). Syntactic productivity under the microscope: The lexical and semantic openness of Dutch minimizing constructions. Folia Linguistica57(3), 723–761.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandeweghe, W. (2005). Minimaliseerders en negatief gebonden of-constructies. Voortgang, Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek23, 239–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In: Proceedings of challenges in the management of large corpora (CMLC-3) (IDS publication server), 28–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Schäfer, R. & F.Bildhauer (2012). Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12), 486–493.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. texrex <https://github.com/rsling/texrex>
  38. COW tool chain <https://github.com/rsling/cow>
  39. R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org/>
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Posit team (2024). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Software, PBC. Boston, MA. <http://www.posit.co/>
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hennig, C. (2020). fpc: Flexible Procedures for Clustering. R package version 2.2-9.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kassambara, A. & F.Mundt. (2020). factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Maechler, M., P.Rousseeuw, A.Struyf, M.Hubert & K.Hornik. (2019). cluster: Cluster Analysis basics and extensions. R package version 2.1.0.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Plevoets, K. (2015). svs: Tools for semantic vector spaces. <https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/svs/>
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Jakubíček, M., A.Kilgarriff, V.Kovář, P.Rychlý & V.Suchomel (2013). The TenTen corpus family. In: 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL. Lancaster, 125–127.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Bible Hub: <https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm>
  47. Stack Exchange: <https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/120350/k-means-on-cosine-similarities-vs-euclidean-distance-lsa>
  48. TROLLing data repository: <https://dataverse.no/dataverse/trolling>
  49. Vlaanderen, Team Taaladvies: <https://www.vlaanderen.be/taaladvies/taaladviezen/letterlijk-betekenis>
  50. Woordenboek der Nederlandse taal: <https://ivdnt.org/woordenboeken/woordenboek-der-nederlandsche-taal/>
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.3.003.HEED
Loading
The semantic structuring of minimizing constructions in present-day Netherlandic Dutch
NedTaal 29, 357 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.3.003.HEED
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.3.003.HEED
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.3.003.HEED
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): cluster analysis; minimizing constructions; Netherlandic Dutch

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error