1887
Volume 23, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates grammatical variation in the complementation of the verb . It describes the distribution of the four possible patterns with two internal arguments and the interaction between pattern choice and lexical choice. The study finds and documents significant differences in the preferred complementation patterns for American and British English as well as for spoken and written news genres. It also establishes the double object construction as a viable option for American English. Methodologically, this study is based on robust automatic syntactic annotation and computerized retrieval from a data-set comprising 2.5 billion words. It is this large amount of data that permits the observation of strong preferences in terms of pattern choice at the interface between grammar and lexis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16025.leh
2018-05-31
2018-09-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, P.
    (2009) The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 312–337.10.1075/ijcl.14.3.02bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.3.02bak [Google Scholar]
  2. Baroni, M. , Bernardini, S. , Ferraresi, A. , & Zanchetta, E.
    (2009) The WaCky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209–226.10.1007/s10579‑009‑9081‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 65(2), 487–517.10.2307/415220
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bresnan, J. , & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  5. Collins, M. , & Brooks, J.
    (1995) Prepositional attachment through a backed-off model. In D. Yarowsky & K. Church (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora (pp.27–38). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Curran, J. , Clark, S. , & Vadas, D.
    (2006) Multi-tagging for lexicalized-grammar parsing. COLING ACL 2006: 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computation Linguistics (pp.697–704). Sydney: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. De Clerck, B. , Delorge, M. , & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. -M.
    (2011) Semantic and pragmatic motivations for constructional preferences: A corpus-based study of provide, supply, and present . Journal of English Linguistics, 39(4), 359–391.10.1177/0075424211421346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424211421346 [Google Scholar]
  8. Firth, J. R.
    (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In J. R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis , Special Volume of the Philological Society (pp.1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gries, S. T. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  10. Grover, C. , & Tobin, R.
    (2006) Rule-based chunking and reusability. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006) (pp.873–878). Genoa: LREC.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hoffmann, S.
    (2007) From web page to mega-corpus: the CNN transcripts. In M. Hundt , N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp.69–85). Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401203791_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791_006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hundt, M. , & Mair, C.
    (1999) “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(2), 221–242.10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun [Google Scholar]
  13. Hunston, S. , & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jespersen, O.
    (1927) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III, Syntax, vol. II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Leech, G. , & Smith, N.
    (2005) Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal, 29, 83–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lehmann, H. M. , & Schneider, G.
    (2009) Parser-based analysis of syntax-lexis interactions. Language and Computers, 68(1), 477–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012a) BNC Dependency Bank 1.0. In S. Oksefjell , J. Ebeling & H. Hasselgard (Eds.), Aspects of Corpus Linguistics: Compilation, Annotation, Analysis. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2012b) Dependency Bank. Paper presented at theLREC 2012 Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora, Istanbul.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2012c) Syntactic variation and lexical preference in the dative-shift alternation. In J. Mukherjee & M. Huber (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English. Theory and Description. (pp.65–76). Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401207713_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401207713_007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Minnen, G. , Carroll, J. , & Pearce, D.
    (2001) Applied morphological processing of English. Natural Language Engineering, 7(3), 207–223.10.1017/S1351324901002728
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324901002728 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mukherjee, J.
    (2001) Principles of pattern selection: A corpus-based case study. Journal of English Linguistics, 29(4), 295–314.10.1177/00754240122005459
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00754240122005459 [Google Scholar]
  22. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Schneider, G.
    (2008) Hybrid Long-distance Functional Dependency Parsing (Umpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Zurich, Switzerland.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Stubbs, M.
    (1995) Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1), 23–55.10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu [Google Scholar]
  25. Wasow, T. , & Arnold, J.
    (2003) Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (pp.119–154). Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110900019.119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.119 [Google Scholar]
  26. Wolk, C. , Bresnan, J. , Rosenbach, A. , & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 382–419.10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16025.leh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.16025.leh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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