Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:15:25.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Usage-Based Approach to Spanish Verbs of ‘Becoming‘

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joan Bybee and
David Eddington
Joan Bybee*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
David Eddington*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
*
Bybee, MSC03-2130, Linguistics, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, [jbybee@unm.edu]
Eddington, 4041 JFSB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, [eddington@byu.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A usage-based analysis of four constructions in Spanish, each with a different verb meaning ‘become’ used with an animate subject and an adjective, provides evidence for exemplar representations of constructions, with analogy to these representations accounting for productive use. We analyze 423 tokens from spoken and written corpora, which we take to represent a subset of a speaker's experience with these constructions. The analysis, based on token frequency and semantic similarity, leads to the organization of tokens with two of the verbs into dense clusters of semantically related adjectives centered on a high-frequency exemplar. The other two verbs are used with more diverse sets of adjectives. We supplement the initial analysis with an experiment in which speakers were asked to rate the semantic similarity of pairs of adjectives. When subjected to multidimensional scaling, the results of the experiment support the initial analysis. We argue that novel instances of verb + adjective sequences are based on analogies to previous experience and not on rules that refer to abstract features. In a second experiment, speakers judged the acceptability of sentences taken from the corpora; the results showed that high-frequency expressions and expressions semantically similar to the high-frequency ones lead to an expression being judged more acceptable. Overall the results support exemplar representations, which are heavily based on usage experience.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , June 2006, pp. 323 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, Phillip, McNeal, Michelle; and Kvak, Donna. 1992. Perhaps the lexicon is coded as a function of word frequency. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 826–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Todd, and Hahn, Ulrich. 2001. Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, David A., and Chumbley, James I.. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected access stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10. 340–57.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 1998. Beyond grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boyland, Joyce Tang. 1997. Morphosyntactic change in progress: A psycholinguistic approach. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34.2.421–35.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Moder, Carol L.. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliamo, 109–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. 65–85.Google Scholar
Chandler, Steve. 2002. Skousen's analogical approach as an exemplar-based model of categorization. Analogical modeling, ed. by Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle, and Parkinson, Dilworth B., 51–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Computational phonology: Proceedings of the third meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics special interest group in computational phonology, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Coste, Jean, and Redondo, Augustin. 1965. Syntaxe de l'espagnol moderne. Paris: Société d'Edition d'Enseignement Superieur.Google Scholar
Crespo, Luis A. 1949. To become. Hispania 32. 210–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberenz, Rolf. 1985. Aproximación estructural a los verbos de cambio en Iberorromance. Linguistique comparée et typologie des langues romanes, ed. by Bouvier, Jean-Claude, 460–75. Aix en Provence: Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 1999. On ‘becoming’ in Spanish: A corpus analysis of verbs of expressing change of state. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18. 23–46.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 2002. Disambiguating Spanish change of state verbs. Hispania 85. 921–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20. 29–62.Google Scholar
Fente, R. 1970. Sobre los verbos de cambio o devenir. Filología Moderna 38. 157–72.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan, Large, Nathan R., Zawaydeh, Bushra; and Pisoni, David B.. 2001. Emergent phonotactic generalizations in English and Arabic. In Bybee & Hopper, 159–80.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 219–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. by Christie, William, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. Conceptual structure, discourse and language, ed. by Goldberg, Adele E., 217–30. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. A modern English grammar on historical principles, 6: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W., 145–65. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marcos Marín, Francisco. 1992. Corpus oral de referencia del español contemporáneo. Textual corpus, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L., and Schaffer, Marguerite M.. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85. 207–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1988. Similarity, frequency, and category representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14. 54–65.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, ed. by Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure: A study of triconsonantal clusters in English. Phonological structure and phonetic form (Papers in laboratory phonology 3), ed. by Keating, Patricia, 168–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee & Hopper, 137–58.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, Carolyn. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarborough, Don L., Cortese, Charles; and Scarborough, Hollis S.. 1977. Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 3. 1–17.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stalans, Loretta J. 1995. Multidimensional scaling. Reading and understanding multivariate statistics, ed. by Grimm, Laurence G. and Yarnold, Paul R., 137–68. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1965 [1965]. Anglo-Saxon primer. 9th edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, Kessler, Brett, Knewasser, Stephanie; and Tincoff, Ruth. 2000. Adults' sensitivity to phonotactic probabilities. Papers in laboratory phonology 5: Acquisition and the lexicon, ed. by Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet, 269–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan; and Kemmerer, David. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar