Volume 40, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Usage-based research in linguistics has to a large extent relied on corpus data. However, a feature’s “failure to appear in even a very large corpus (such as the Web) is not evidence for ungrammaticality, nor is appearance evidence for grammaticality” (Schütze and Sprouse 2013: 29). It is therefore advisable to complement corpus-based analyses with experimental data, so as to (ideally) obtain converging evidence. This paper reviews reasons for combining corpus linguistic with psycholinguistic experimental methods, and demonstrates how research on varieties of English can profit from experimentation. For a study of conversion in Asian Englishes, the maze task (Forster, Guerrera, and Elliot 2009Forster 2010) was implemented with a web-based, open-source software. The results of the experiment dovetail with a previous analysis of the (Davies 2013). These results should encourage researchers not to base findings exclusively on corpus evidence, but corroborate them by means of experimental data.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Davies, Mark
    2013 “Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 Billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries” corpus2.byu.edu/glowbe/.
  2. Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel
    2010 “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology”. Corpora5: 1–27. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arppe, Antti, and Juhani Järvikivi
    2007 “Every Method Counts: Combining Corpus-Based and Experimental Evidence in the Study of Synonymy”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory3: 131–159. 10.1515/CLLT.2007.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. Harald
    2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. Harald, and Petar Milin
    2010 “Analyzing Reaction Times”. International Journal of Psychological Research3: 12–28. 10.21500/20112084.807
    https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bao, Zhiming
    2010a “A Usage-Based Approach to Substratum Transfer: The Case of four Unproductive Features in Singapore English”. Language86: 792–820. 10.1353/lan.2010.0036
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0036 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2010b “Must in Singapore English”. Lingua120: 1727–1737. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Birnbaum, Michael H.
    2004 “Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet”. Annual Review of Psychology55: 803–832. 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
    2012Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boyd, Jeremy K., and Adele E. Goldberg
    2011 “Learning what not to Say. The Role of Statistical Preemption and Categorization in a-Adjective Production”. Language87: 55–83. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brandt, Silke, and Evan Kidd
    2011 “Relative Clause Acquisition and Representation: Evidence from Spontaneous Speech, Sentence Repetition, and Comprehension”. InDoris Schönefeld, ed.Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 273–291. 10.1075/hcp.33.17bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33.17bra [Google Scholar]
  12. Bresnan, Joan
    2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation”. InSam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, eds.Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: De Gruyter, 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bresnan, Joan, and Marilyn Ford
    2010 “Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English”. Language86: 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan L.
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  15. Callies, Marcus
    2016 “Towards a Process-Oriented Approach to Comparing EFL and ESL Varieties. A Corpus-Study of Lexical Innovations”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research2: 229–251. 10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.05cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.2.05cal [Google Scholar]
  16. Derix, Johanna, Olga Iljina, Andreas Schulze-Bonhage, Ad Aertsen, and Tonio Ball
    2012 “‘Doctor’ or ‘Darling’? Decoding the Communication Partner from ECoG of the Anterior Temporal Lobe during Non-Experimental, Real-Life Social Interaction”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience6: 251.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Divjak, Dagmar
    2008 “On (In)frequency and (Un)acceptability”. InBarbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ed.Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications – State of the Art. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 213–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Don, Jan, Mieke Trommelen, and Wim Zonneveld
    2000 “Conversion and Category Indeterminacy”. InGeert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, eds.Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Vol.1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 943–952.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Forster, Kenneth I.
    “The Word Maze Game”. www.u.arizona.edu/~kforster/MAZE/how_it_works.htm (accessedApril 16, 2015).
  20. 2010 “Using a Maze Task to Track Lexical and Sentence Processing”. The Mental Lexicon5: 347–357. 10.1075/ml.5.3.05for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.3.05for [Google Scholar]
  21. Forster, Kenneth I., Christine Guerrera, and Lisa Elliot
    2009 “The Maze Task: Measuring Forced Incremental Sentence Processing Time”. Behavior Research Methods41: 163–171. 10.3758/BRM.41.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 “Corpora and Experimental Methods: A State-of-the-Art Review”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5: 1–26. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, Stefan Th.
    2002 “Evidence in Linguistics: Three Approaches to Genitives in English”. InRuth M. Brend, William J. Sullivan, and Arle R. Lommel, eds.LACUS Forum XXVIII: What Constitutes Evidence in Linguistics?Fullerton: Linguistic Society of Canada and the United States, 17–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, and Doris Schönefeld
    2005 “Converging Evidence. Bringing Together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics16: 635–676. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hilpert, Martin
    2017 “Frequencies in Diachronic Corpora and Knowledge of Language”. InMarianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger, eds.The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–68. 10.1017/9781316091746.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Horch, Clemens
    2015QualityCrowd2. https:github.com/clorch/QualityCrowd2 (accessedJune 30, 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Horch, Stephanie
    2016 “Conversion in Asian Englishes. A Usage-Based Account of the Emergence of New Local Norms”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. doi:  10.6094/978‑3‑928969‑68‑0
    https://doi.org/10.6094/978-3-928969-68-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Keimel, Christian, Julian Habigt, Clemens Horch, and Klaus Diepold
    2012 “QualityCrowd – A Framework for Crowd-Based Quality Evaluation”. InMarek Domański, Tomasz Grajek, Damian Karwowski, and Ryszard Stasiński, eds.Proceedings, 2012 Picture Coding Symposium. Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 245–248. 10.1109/PCS.2012.6213338
    https://doi.org/10.1109/PCS.2012.6213338 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kosinski, Robert J.
    2013 “A Literature Review on Reaction Time”. biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/lab/110/reaction.htm (accessedMay 7, 2015).
  30. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1999Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lorenz, David
    2013 “Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. doi:10.6094/978‑3‑928969‑28‑4
    https://doi.org/10.6094/978-3-928969-28-4 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mair, Christian
    2013 “The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the Transnational Importance of Mobile and Mediated Vernaculars”. English World-Wide34: 253–278. 10.1075/eww.34.3.01mai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.34.3.01mai [Google Scholar]
  33. 2017 “From Priming and Processing to Frequency Effects and Grammaticalization? Contracted Semi-Modals in Present-Day English”. InMarianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger, eds.The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–212. 10.1017/9781316091746.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316091746.009 [Google Scholar]
  34. Matthews, Stephen, and Virginia Yip
    1994Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Meunier, Fanny, and Damien Littré
    2013 “Tracking Learners’ Progress. Adopting a Dual ‘Corpus cum Experimental Data’ Approach”. The Modern Language Journal97: 61–76. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01424.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01424.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Milroy, Lesley
    1980Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 “Collostructional Nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-Construction Associations in the International Corpus of English”. English World-Wide30: 27–51. 10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.30.1.03muk [Google Scholar]
  38. Nelson, Gerald
    2004 “Introduction”. World Englishes23: 225–226. 10.1111/j.0883‑2919.2004.00347.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0883-2919.2004.00347.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Pavesi, Maria
    1998 “‘Same Word, Same Idea’: Conversion as a Word Formation Process”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching36: 213–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Pinheiro, José C., and Douglas M. Bates
    2000Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Po-Ching, Yip, and Don Rimmington
    2004Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ratcliff, Roger, Anjali Thapar, Pablo Gomez, and Gail McKoon
    2004 “A Diffusion Model Analysis of the Effects of Aging in the Lexical-Decision Task”. Psychology and Aging19: 278–289. 10.1037/0882‑7974.19.2.278
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.19.2.278 [Google Scholar]
  43. Reips, Ulf-Dietrich
    2002 “Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting”. Experimental Psychology49: 243–256. 10.1026//1618‑3169.49.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1026//1618-3169.49.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schneider, Edgar W.
    2003 “The Dynamics of New Englishes: From Identity Construction to Dialect Birth”. Language79: 233–281. 10.1353/lan.2003.0136
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0136 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2007Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2014 “New Reflections on the Evolutionary Dynamics of World Englishes”. World Englishes33: 9–32. 10.1111/weng.12069
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12069 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schönefeld, Doris
    ed. 2011aConverging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.33
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2011b “Introduction: On Evidence and the Convergence of Evidence in Linguistic Research”. InDoris Schönefeld, ed.Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–31. 10.1075/hcp.33.03sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.33.03sch [Google Scholar]
  49. Schütze, Carson T., and Jon Sprouse
    2013 “Judgment Data”. InRobert J. Podesva, and Devyani Sharma, eds.Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller, and Melanie Röthlisberger
    2016 “Around the World in Three Alternations: Modelling Syntactic Variation in Varieties of English”. English World-Wide37: 109–137. 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm [Google Scholar]
  51. Wallentin, Mikkel
    2009 “Putative Sex Differences in Verbal Abilities and Language Cortex. A Critical Review”. Brain and Language108: 175–183. 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Williams, Jessica
    1987 “Non-Native Varieties of English: A Special Case of Language Acquisition”. English World-Wide8: 161–199. 10.1075/eww.8.2.02wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.8.2.02wil [Google Scholar]
  53. Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
    2013 “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change”. Diachronica30: 382–419. 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]
  54. Wulff, Stefanie
    2009 “Converging Evidence from Corpus and Experimental Data to Capture Idiomaticity”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5: 131–159. 10.1515/CLLT.2009.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.006 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Asian Englishes; converging evidence; conversion; web-based experimentation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error