Using association plots to investigate language change©rences 2019/2018_into... · brainwash frighten scare bully shame shock tease intimidate deceive trick fool mislead dupe con

Using association plots to investigate language change:Distributional shifts in the into-causative

Susanne Flachsfla.ch [email protected] @skeptikantin

Overview

A. into-causativeA.I. Synchronic propertiesA.II. Diachronic origin

B. Data & corpusB.I. ProblemsB.II. Visualization

C. Association plotsC.I. Shifts in verb classesC.II. Shifts in argument structure

D. Epilogue

0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

INTO-causative

Examples: COCA; Rudanko (2011), Stefanowitsch (2014)

(2) Dr. Wilson (the reliably great Robert Sean Leonard) tries to blackmail the staff-less House … into hiring a new team by kidnapping his beloved guitar.

(1) “Who was that one who talked us into taking this limo?”

(3) The Bush campaign frightened the American people into believing that the threat of terrorism would increase if Bush were defeated.

(4) Hearers will be duped or deceived into believing falsehoods.

(5) I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary.

talk somebody into doing sth.

talk businesstalk somebody*

SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving

causer V causee result

INTO-causative

Examples: COCA; Rudanko (2011), Stefanowitsch (2014); CxG: Goldberg (1995)






‘X CAUSES Y TO DO Z by V’

talk somebody into doing sth.

talk businesstalk somebody*


causer CAUSE causee resultSEM

SYN

manner

CAUS

ATIO

N

Stimulate your own mind into thinking creatively.





Examples: COCA; Stefanowitsch (2014), Gries & Stefanowitsch (2004)

#

!

&

talkcoax

persuade argueflatter

charm

force coerce

pressurepushblackmail

torture

beatbrainwash

frightenscare

bully shame shock

teaseintimidate

trick fooldeceive

misleadbetraycondupe

hypnotize

leadguidestimulate

steertrigger

calm rationalize

"

chit-chat

$%

guilt


humor

wheedle

INTO-causative

HISTORY

Emergence of the INTO-causative

(6) he was honestly trepanned … into giving sentence against himself. [1678](7) Besides, you Hector’d me into saying I lov’d both [1689]

(8) … and then you have charged me with bullocking you into owning the truth. [1749]

(9) The house was large and elegant, and betrayed me into furnishing it rather better than suited my present circumstances [1763]

(10) I wish I could teaze her into loving me a little. [1781](11) the civilities … flattered her into believing she had excited a partiality

that a very little time would ripen into affection [1782](12) … and … led him into speaking of his own plays. [1824]

Examples: EEBO/CLMET/COHA; Flach (accepted); cf. Rudanko (2000), Davies & Kim (2018), Davies (2012)

A. The King moved the army into France. [into NP]

B. It turned mirth into mourning. [into -ingN]They cast us into trembling and fear.

C. They awed us into truth-speaking. [into -ingN / V]

X Y location

state

action

X Y

X Y

!

"

#$

&

FEAR

COMM

MISC

TRICK

FORCE

DATA

Data

Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)

[class="VERB"] []* "into"%c ".*ing"%c within s;400 million words, 1810–2009fiction, magazine, news, non-fiction

Data

Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)

[class="VERB"] []* "into"%c ".*ing"%c within s;

✔

✔✔

✔✔

400 million words, 1810–2009fiction, magazine, news, non-fiction

meta data

annotation

example

meta data

annotation

example

ANALYSIS

0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

Excursus: Corpus dataProductivity

(100 random samples)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1810s−1850s

1860s−1900s

1910s−1940s

1950s−2000s

RATIO

Type/Token

Hapax/Token

Hapax/Types

0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

Excursus: Corpus data

COHA corpus size

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1810s−2000s

Milli

on v

erbs

0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)


0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)


P1 P2 P3 P4 Sumcommunication 17 103 204 628 952fear 27 211 306 534 1078force 8 107 225 588 928misc 7 68 91 134 300trickery 54 274 388 719 1435Sum 113 763 1214 2603 4693

Case study I: Shifts in verb classes

COHA

P1 P2 P3 P4

communicationfearforcetrickerymisc

0

10

20

30

40

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)


P1 P2 P3 P4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 misc

trickery

force

fear

communication

PROPO

RTION

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

0

10

20

30

40 trickery

communicationforcefear

misc

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

Excursus: Observed vs. expected

HAIR male female SUMdark 14 21 35light 6 15 21SUM 20 36 56

20 * 35 / 56 = 12.512.5

Excursus: Observed vs. expected

HAIR male female SUMdark 14 21 35light 6 15 21SUM 20 36 56

12.5 22.57.5 13.5

HAIR male femaledark 0.18 0.10light 0.30 0.17

!2 = 0.75

!2 = ∑(O – E)2

E

p = 0.38, n.s.

ASSOCIATION PLOTS



!2 = 137.62p < 0.001, ***

22.9

V = .098



!2 = 137.62p < 0.001, ***

22.925.9

V = .098



!2 = 137.62p < 0.001, ***

22.925.922.37.2

34.6

154.7175.3150.9

48.8233.3

246.3278.8240.177.6

371.2

528.0597.9514.7166.4795.9

V = .098

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s


Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

P1 P2 P3 P4

communicationfearforcetrickerymisc

0

10

20

30

40

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

P1 P2 P3 P4

trickeryfearmiscforcecommunication

0

10

20

30

40

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

#

$

causer CAUSE causee result



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

#

$

!


?



−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

#

$

!

"


force { a teara discussiona door open

torture { one’s mindone’s feelings

−2.8

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.7

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.4182e−09

PATIENT/THEM

E

intransitive

inanimate

animate

1810s−1850s

PERIOD

1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

Case study II: Shifts in argument structure


We frighten him.They bullied everyone.

We argue a case.They ridicule authority.

She talks (to him).They laugh.

ANIMATE PATIENT

INANIMATE PATIENT

INTRANSITIVE

200 random obs per periodof verbs in that period, butoutside the into-causative

ABC

ABDE

−2.8

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.7

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.4182e−09

PATIENT/THEM

E

intransitive

inanimate

animate

1810s−1850s

PERIOD

1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s






ANIMATE PATIENT

INANIMATE PATIENT

INTRANSITIVE

and then a miracle occurs…


ABC

ABDE

−2.8

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.7

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.4182e−09

PATIENT/THEM

E

intransitive

inanimate

animate

1810s−1850s

PERIOD

1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s






ANIMATE PATIENT

INANIMATE PATIENT

INTRANSITIVE

and then a miracle occurs…


ABC

ABDE

Association plots: Interpretation


−2.8

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.7

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.4182e−09

PATIENT/THEM

E

intransitive

inanimate

animate

1810s−1850s

PERIOD

1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

semantic classes

argument structure



−2.8

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.7

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.4182e−09

PATIENT/THEM

E

intransitive

inanimate

animate

1810s−1850s

PERIOD

1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

semantic classes

argument structure



−3.7

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.2

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =2.0627e−10

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1910s−1930s 1940s−1960s 1970s−1990s

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

1810s–2000s

1910s–1990s

EPILOGUE

Epilogue

P1 P2 P3 P4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 misc

trickery

force

fear

communication

PROPO

RTION

P1 P2 P3 P4

trickeryfearmiscforcecommunication

0

10

20

30

40

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIODCLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s



SYN

manner

0

30

60

90

120

150

P11810s−1850s

P21860s−1900s

P31910s−1940s

P41950s−2000s

FREQ

UEN

CY

(pm

v)

Epilogue: Back to theory

Flach (accepted, under review); cf. Hilpert (2013, 2018), Traugott & Trousdale (2013)



SYN

manner



SYN

manner



SYN

manner

CAUSATION

−4.2

−2.0

−1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

4.4

Pearsonresiduals:

p−value =< 2.22e−16

PERIOD

CLASS

communication

force

misc

fear

trickery

1810s−1850s 1860s−1900s 1910s−1940s 1950s−2000s

sfla.ch [email protected]

@skeptikantin

References

Davies, Mark. 2012. Some methodological issues related to corpus-based investigations of recent syntactic changes in English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 157–174. OUP.

Davies, Mark & Jong-Bok Kim. 2018. Semantic and lexical shifts with the “into-causative” construction in American English. In Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe (eds.), Explorations in English historical syntax, 159–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Flach, Susanne. under review. From movement into action to manner of causation: Changes in argument mapping in the into-causative.

Flach, Susanne. accepted. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and links in the network: Advances in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins.

Friendly, Michael. 1992. Graphical methods for categorical data. SAS User Group International Conference Proceedings 17. 190–200.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based Neighbour Clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81.

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. CUP.

Hilpert, Martin. 2018. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. John Benjamins.

Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rudanko, Juhani. 2000. Corpora and complementation: Tracing sentential complementation patterns of nouns, adjectives, and verbs over the last three centuries. Lanham: University Press of America.

Rudanko, Juhani. 2005. Lexico‐grammatical innovation in current British and American English: A case study on the transitive into ‐ing pattern with evidence from the Bank of English Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 77(2). 171–187.

Rudanko, Juhani. 2011. Changes in complementation in British and American English: Corpus-based studies on non-finite complements in recent English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2014. Collostructional analysis: A case study of the English into-causative. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions collocations patterns, 217–238. De Gruyter.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. OUP.

Zeileis, Achim, David Meyer & Kurt Hornik. 2007. Residual-based shadings for visualizing (conditional) independence. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(3). 507–525.

Documents

Using association plots to investigate language change©rences 2019/2018_into... · brainwash frighten scare bully shame shock tease intimidate deceive trick fool mislead dupe con