1887
image of The rise of colligations

Abstract

Abstract

This article examines the lexically parallel English and German constructions and “not tolerate (someone or something)”, from synchronic, diachronic, and quantitative perspectives. Syntactic and semantic restrictions suggest that the usage of and in the relevant sense is older than other semantically similar verbs (e.g. English , German ), while quantitative evidence from corpora shows that the and constructions are both colligationally stronger than lexical competitors. Evidence from the history of indicates that the lexeme in the Germanic and other Indo-European languages has a long history of being employed in the relevant sense. The restrictions on usage and the colligational strength of the respective English and German constructions are thus argued to result from the antiquity of the construction and functional competition from other lexemes.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20022.hac
2022-07-18
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/ijcl.20022.hac/ijcl.20022.hac.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20022.hac&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V.
    (2011) Why Brush Your Teeth is better than Teeth – Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7(2), 107–129. 10.1080/15475441.2010.505489
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2010.505489 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H.
    (1989) A Corpus-Based Approach to Morphological Productivity: Statistical Analysis and Psycholinguistic Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. InG. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
    Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (2020) Deutsches Textarchiv: Grundlage für ein Refernzkorpus der neuhochdeutschen Sprache [German Text Archive: Foundation for a Reference Corpus of the New High German Language]. www.deutschestextarchiv.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolinger, D.
    (1976) Meaning and Memory. Forum Linguisticum1(1), 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bosworth, J., & Toller, T. N.
    (1921) An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford University Press. www.bosworthtoller.com/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bozzone, C.
    (2014) Constructions: A New Approach to Formularity, Discourse, and Syntax in Homer [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. eScholarship University of California. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6kg0q4cx
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (Forthcoming). Homeric constructions, their productivity, and the development of Epic Greek. InL. van Beek Ed. Proceedings of the Conference “Language Change in Epic Greek and other Oral Traditions”. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2006) Form usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4), 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2007) Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010) Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.
    (1999) The effect of usage on constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596. 10.1515/ling.37.4.575
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, M.
    (2004) British National Corpus (fromOxford University Press). RetrievedJuly 28, 2020fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/bnc
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. RetrievedOctober 21, 2019fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010–) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. RetrievedJuly 28, 2020fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/coha
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015) Handsard Corpus. Part of the SAMUELS project. RetrievedJuly 28, 2020fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/hansard
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2017) Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project. RetrievedJuly 28, 2020fromhttps://www.english-corpora.org/eebo
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cameron, A., Amos, A. C., dePaolo, A., Liuzza, R., & Momma, H.
    (2018) The Dictionary of Old English: A–I. Dictionary of Old English Project. https://doe.utoronto.ca/
    [Google Scholar]
  19. dePaolo, A., Wilkin, J. P., & Xiang, X.
    (2009) Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. https://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doecorpus/
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Donnhauser, K., Gippert, J., & Lühr, R.
    (2015) Referenzkorpus Altdeutsch. https://www.deutschdiachrondigital.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, N.
    (2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics27(1), 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ami038
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038 [Google Scholar]
  22. Evert, S.
    (2004) The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart]. elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2005/2371/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Firth, R.
    (1964) Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, S. Th.
    (2009) Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203880920
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880920 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–43. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  26. Grimm, J.
    (1854–1961) Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm [German Dictionary by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm]. Hirzel. www.woerterbuchnetz.de/DWB
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hackstein, O.
    (2012a) When words coalesce: Chunking and morphophonemic extension. InH. Craig Melchert (Ed.), The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010 (pp.87–104). Reichert.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2012b) Das Gedächtnis der Sprache. Sprachwandel und Gegenwart – welche Bedeutung besitzt die sprachliche Vergangenheit für die Gegenwart? [The Memory of language. Language change and the present day – what significance does the linguistic past have for the present?] Akademie Aktuell. Zeitschrift der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften01/2012, 12–17. https://www.academia.edu/14253166/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haiman, J.
    (1994) Ritualization and the development of language. InW. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. (pp.3–28). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.109.07hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.109.07hai [Google Scholar]
  30. Hirzel
    Hirzel (2006–) Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. www.mhdwb-online.de/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmberg, A.
    (2015) Verb second. InT. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax: Theory and Analysis. de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennison, S.
    (2001) Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 132–138. 10.3758/BF03196149
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196149 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kupietz, M.
    (Ed.) (2019) Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus – DeReKo. RetrievedOctober 21, 2019fromhttps://cosmas2.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kuryłowicz, J.
    (1945) Le nature des procès dits analogiques [The nature of so-called analogical processes]. Acta Linguistica, 5, 15–37. 10.1080/03740463.1945.10410880
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.1945.10410880 [Google Scholar]
  35. Labov, W.
    (1989) The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change, 1, 85–97. 10.1017/S0954394500000120
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000120 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2001) Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lehecka, T.
    (2015) Collocation and colligation. InJ-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online (pp.1–20). John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/online/hop/. 10.1075/hop.19.col2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.19.col2 [Google Scholar]
  38. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do Linguistics with R. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lewis, R. E.
    (Ed.) (1952–2001) Middle English Dictionary. University of Michigan Press 1952–2001 Online edition inMiddle English Compendium. Frances McSparran, (Eds.). University of Michigan Library, 2000–2018. Available online atquod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/. 10.3998/mpub.6334
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.6334 [Google Scholar]
  40. Meillet, A.
    (1937) Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes [Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Indo-European Languages] (8th ed.). Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., Hornik, K., Gerber, F., & Friendly, M.
    (2017) vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data (Version 1.4-5) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcd/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Oxford University Press
    Oxford University Press (1884–) The Oxford English Dictionary Online. https://www.oed.com
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pinault, G.-J.
    (2015) The formation of Buddhist languages, as exemplified by the Tocharian evidence. InM. Malzahn, M. Peyrot, H. Fellner, & T.-S. Illés (Eds.), Tocharian Texts in Context, International Conference on Tocharian Manuscripts and Silk Road Culture, Vienna, June 25–29th, 2013 (pp.159–185). Hempen.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sinclair, J.
    (1998) The lexical item. InE. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive Lexical Semantics (pp.1–24). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.171.02sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.171.02sin [Google Scholar]
  46. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2000) English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  47. Walz, M.
    (1892) Garel von dem blüenden Tal: Ein höfischer Roman aus dem Artussagenkreis von dem Pleier [Garel of the Flowering Valley: A Courtly Novel from the Arthurian Cycle by Der Pleier]. Wagner’sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wegera, K.-P., & Klein, T.
    (2016) Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdetusch. https://www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/rem/
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Wiechmann, D.
    (2008) On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory4(2), 253–90. 10.1515/CLLT.2008.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.011 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zeldes, A.
    (2012) Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110303919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303919 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20022.hac
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.20022.hac
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