Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper studies the English construction. It starts with a (multiple) distinctive collexeme analysis (as one of the subtypes of collostructional analysis) of the pairs appearing in the given construction in three regional varieties of English (American, British and Indian English) based on the GloWbE corpus. This analysis establishes the most distinctive and most strongly repelled pairs in the respective varieties. These results are then interpreted from the perspective of three models of inter-cultural and cross-cultural communication styles. The paper demonstrates that the most distinctive and the most repelled pairs do differ across the three varieties and that this may reflect subtle differences in the underlying cultural conceptualizations. The paper also introduces the notion of ‘(multiple) distinctive collexeme analysis of co-varying collexemes’, as an extension of the existing notion of the given type of collostructional analysis.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, P.
    (2017) American and British English: Divided by a Common Language?Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316105313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316105313 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergen, B., & Binsted, K.
    (2004) The cognitive linguistics of scalar humor. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.79–91). CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fina, M. E.
    (2011) What a TripAdvisor corpus can tell us about culture. Cultus: The Journal of Intercultural Mediation and Communication, 4, 59–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fortuin, E.
    (2013) The construction of excess and sufficiency from a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology, 17, 31–88. 10.1515/lity‑2013‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2013-0002 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2014) Deconstructing a verbal illusion: The ‘no X is too Y to Z’ construction and the rhetoric of negation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 242–292. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0014 [Google Scholar]
  8. Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G.
    (2014) Cognitive linguistics and language variation. InJ. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.202–217). Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004a) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2004b) Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.225–236). CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
    (2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–76. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hall, E.
    (1976) Beyond Culture. Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoffman, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hofstede, G.
    (1991) Cultures and Organizations. McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Howe, J.
    (2016) Rethinking Job Security: A Comparative Analysis of Unfair Dismissal Law in the UK, Australia and the USA.Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781315606101
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315606101 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ivorra Pérez, F. M.
    (2014) Cultural values and digital discourse: An intercultural communication approach to the transactional discourse of Spanish and US sales websites. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 36, 50–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jensen, K. E.
    (2014a) This construction is too hot to handle: A corpus study of an adjectival construction. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp.740–748). Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014b) Too female to be ruthless and too pregnant to argue: Semantic conflict and resolution in the [too ADJ to V]-construction. Suvremena lingvistika, 40(77), 1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2014c, July). Force-dynamic cultural models in a scalar adjectival construction [Paper presentation]. 5th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Lancaster, England. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/files/206865129/Force_dynamic_manuscript.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) Inferring cultural models from corpus data: Force-dynamic cultural models reflected in the discursive behavior of a scalar adjectival construction. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 1, 126–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2017) Corpora and cultural cognition: How corpus-linguistic methodology can contribute to cultural linguistics. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp.477–505). Springer. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_22
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_22 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lewis, R. D.
    (2005) Finland, Cultural Lone Wolf. Intercultural Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2006) When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully across Cultures (3rd ed.). Nicholas Brealey.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Murphy, L.
    (2018) The Prodigal Tongue: The Love-Hate Relationship between American and British English. Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S.
    (2008) Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. InA. Kallioniemi (Ed.), Renovating and Developing Subject Didactics. Proceedings of a Subject-didactic Symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2, 2008 (pp.783–796). University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Paradis, C.
    (2000) It’s well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. InJ. M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English (pp.147–160). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pavlović, V.
    (2019) Massive corpora and models of cross-cultural communication styles in cognitive linguistics: The case of the N1 V (for) N2 to-infinitive construction in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 17(1), 29–52. 10.1075/rcl.00025.pav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00025.pav [Google Scholar]
  31. (2020) On elements of culturally influenced language use in the “Adj Enough to V” construction in British and American English. InB. Čubrović (Ed.), BELLS90 Proceedings: International Conference to Mark the 90th Anniversary of the English Department (Vol.1, pp.165–185). Faculty of Philology. 10.18485/bells90.2020.1.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.18485/bells90.2020.1.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  32. Piller, I.
    (2007) Linguistics and intercultural communication. Language and Linguistic Compass, 1(3). 208–226. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00012.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00012.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Prykarpatska, I.
    (2008) Why are you late? Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 87–102. 10.14198/raei.2008.21.05
    https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2008.21.05 [Google Scholar]
  34. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing(Version 3.5.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Schönefeld, D.
    (2013) It is… quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested (BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-en construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 52, 17–33. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Schneider, E. W.
    (2007) Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511618901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618901 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2013) Collostructional analysis. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.290–306). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  39. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J.
    (1991) American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Rev. ed.). Nicholas Brealey.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Tognini-Bonelli, E.
    (2001) Corpus Linguistics at Work. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2005) Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. InRadden, G., Köpcke, K. -M., Berg, T., & Siemund, P. (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction in Lexicon and Grammar (p.265–281). John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.17wul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.17wul [Google Scholar]

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