Using association plots to investigate language change: Distributional shifts in the into-causative Susanne Flach sfla.ch susanne.fl[email protected] @skeptikantin
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)
(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.
‘X CAUSES Y TO DO Z by V’
talk somebody into doing sth.
talk businesstalk somebody*
SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving
causer CAUSE causee resultSEM
SYN
manner
CAUS
ATIO
N
Stimulate your own mind into thinking creatively.
(4) Hearers will be duped or deceived into believing falsehoods.
(3) The Bush campaign frightened the American people into believing that the threat of terrorism would increase if Bush were defeated.
(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?”
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
$%
guilt
(5) I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary.
humor
wheedle
INTO-causative
HISTORY
Emergence of the INTO-causative
(6) he was honestly trepanned … into giving sentence against himself. [1678](7) Besides, you Hector’d me into saying I lov’d both [1689]
(8) … and then you have charged me with bullocking you into owning the truth. [1749]
(9) The house was large and elegant, and betrayed me into furnishing it rather better than suited my present circumstances [1763]
(10) I wish I could teaze her into loving me a little. [1781](11) the civilities … flattered her into believing she had excited a partiality
that a very little time would ripen into affection [1782](12) … and … led him into speaking of his own plays. [1824]
Examples: EEBO/CLMET/COHA; Flach (accepted); cf. Rudanko (2000), Davies & Kim (2018), Davies (2012)
A. The King moved the army into France. [into NP]
B. It turned mirth into mourning. [into -ingN]They cast us into trembling and fear.
C. They awed us into truth-speaking. [into -ingN / V]
X Y location
state
action
X Y
X Y
!
"
#$
&
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)
Excursus: Corpus data
0
30
60
90
120
150
P11810s−1850s
P21860s−1900s
P31910s−1940s
P41950s−2000s
FREQ
UEN
CY
(pm
v)
Excursus: Corpus data
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 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
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
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
!2 = 137.62p < 0.001, ***
22.9
V = .098
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
!2 = 137.62p < 0.001, ***
22.925.9
V = .098
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
!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
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
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
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
P1 P2 P3 P4
communicationfearforcetrickerymisc
0
10
20
30
40
FREQ
UEN
CY
(pm
v)
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
P1 P2 P3 P4
trickeryfearmiscforcecommunication
0
10
20
30
40
FREQ
UEN
CY
(pm
v)
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
#
$
causer CAUSE causee result
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
#
$
!
causer CAUSE causee result
?
Case study I: Shifts in verb classes
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
#
$
!
"
causer CAUSE causee result
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
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
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
Case study II: Shifts in argument structure
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
We frighten him.They bullied everyone.
We argue a case.They ridicule authority.
She talks (to him).They laugh.
ANIMATE PATIENT
INANIMATE PATIENT
INTRANSITIVE
and then a miracle occurs…
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
Case study II: Shifts in argument structure
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
We frighten him.They bullied everyone.
We argue a case.They ridicule authority.
She talks (to him).They laugh.
ANIMATE PATIENT
INANIMATE PATIENT
INTRANSITIVE
and then a miracle occurs…
200 random obs per periodof verbs in that period, butoutside the into-causative
ABC
ABDE
Association plots: Interpretation
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
−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
Association plots: Interpretation
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
−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
Association plots: Interpretation
Friendly (1992), Zeileis et al. (2007)
−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
SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving
causer CAUSE causee resultSEM
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)
SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving
causer CAUSE causee resultSEM
SYN
manner
SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving
causer CAUSE causee resultSEM
SYN
manner
SUBJ V OBJ OBLinto Ving
causer CAUSE causee resultSEM
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.