Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Prepositional phrases (PPs) play an important part in English argument structure constructions, but pose considerable challenges for linguistic investigations of any kind. In addition to the fact that PP-attachment is generally notoriously difficult to model computationally, a particularly striking methodological challenge in investigating verb-dependent PPs across (synchronic and/or diachronic) corpora is that such cross-corpus studies may have to rely on material annotated with different tools. This study evaluates the impact that such differences in corpus annotation may have on retrieval of verb-attached PPs by means of data from Early and Late Modern English corpora. Our intrinsic (recall/precision) and extrinsic parser evaluation shows that annotation does play a role, but that the noise introduced is negligible as far as frequency developments are concerned.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agirre, E., Baldwin, T., & Martinez, D.
    (2008) Improving parsing and PP attachment performance with sense information. InJ. D. Moore, S. Teufel, J. Allan, & S. Furui (Eds.), Proceedings of ACL-08 (pp.317–325). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P08-1037/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ARCHER-3.2 = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers version 3.2
    ARCHER-3.2 = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers version 3.2 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010/2013/2016 Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala, Zurich.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldwin, T., Kordoni, V., & Villavicencio, A.
    (2009) Prepositions in applications: A survey and introduction to the special issue. Computational Linguistics, 25(2), 119–149. 10.1162/coli.2009.35.2.119
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2009.35.2.119 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baugh, A., & Cable, T.
    (1993) A History of the English Language. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203994634
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994634 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Finegan, E., & Atkinson, D.
    (1994) ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. InU. Fries, G. Tottie, & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora (pp.1–14). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Claridge, C.
    (2000) Multi-Word Verbs in Early Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study. Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004333840
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004333840 [Google Scholar]
  7. Covington, M.
    (1994) An Empirically Motivated Reinterpretation of Dependency Grammar. Technical Report, University of Georgia.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. De Kok, D., Ma, J., Dima, C., & Hinrichs, E.
    (2017) PP attachment: Where do we stand?InM. Lapata, P. Blunsom, & A. Koller (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2 (pp.311–317). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/E17-2050/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Delecraz, S., Nasr, A., Béchet, F., & Favre, B.
    (2017) Correcting prepositional phrase attachments using multimodal corpora. InY. Miyao & K. Sagae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, September 2017, Pisa, Italy (pp.72–77). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-6311/
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gong, H., Mu, J., Bhat, S., & Viswanath, P.
    (2018) Preposition sense disambiguation and representation. InE. Riloff, D. Chiang, J. Hockenmaier, & J. Tsujii (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (pp.1510–1521). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/D18-1180/. 10.18653/v1/D18‑1180
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1180 [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G.
    (2007) The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes, 15(1), 3–15. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00088.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00088.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Hindle, D., & Rooth, M.
    (1993) Structural ambiguity and lexical relations. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 103–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Huang, G., Wang, J., Tang, H., & Ye, X.
    (2020) BERT-based contextual semantic analysis for English preposition error correction. Journal of Physics: Conf. Ser, 16931, 012115. 10.1088/1742‑6596/1693/1/012115
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1693/1/012115 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kroch, A., Taylor, A., & Santorini, B.
    (2000) The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 4. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-4/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L.
    (2004) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, first edition, release 3. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEME-RELEASE-3/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Diertani, A.
    (2016) The Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania, second edition, release 1. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE2-RELEASE-1/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kulick, S., Bies, A., Mott, J., Kroch, A., Liberman, M., & Santorini, B.
    (2014) Parser evaluation using derivation trees: A Complement to evalb. InK. Toutanova & H. Wu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.668–673). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P14-2109/. 10.3115/v1/P14‑2109
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2109 [Google Scholar]
  18. Levy, R., & Andrew, G.
    (2006) Tregex and Tsurgeon: Tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures. In5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Merlo, P., & Esteve Ferrer, E.
    (2005) The notion of argument in prepositional phrase attachment. Computational Linguistics, 32(3), 341–378. 10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.341
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.341 [Google Scholar]
  20. Mollá, D., & Hutchinson, B.
    (2003) Intrinsic versus extrinsic evaluations of parsing systems. InK. Pastra (Ed.), Proceedings of the EACL 2003 Workshop on Evaluation Initiatives in Natural Language Processing: Are evaluation methods, metrics and resources reusable? Budapest, Hungary, April 14, 2003 (pp.43–50). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W03-2806/. 10.3115/1641396.1641403
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1641396.1641403 [Google Scholar]
  21. Rayson, P., Archer, D., & Smith, N.
    (2005) VARD versus WORD: A comparison of the UCREL variant detector and modern spellcheckers on English historical corpora. InProceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005, Birmingham University, July 14–17. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/12686/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rodríguez-Puente, P.
    (2019) The English Phrasal verb: History, Stylistic Drifts and lLexicalisation. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Roh, Y.-H., Lee, K.-Y., & Kim, Y.-G.
    (2011) Improving PP attachment disambiguation in a rule-based parser. InH. H. Gao & M. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp.559–566). Institute of Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Processing, Waseda University. https://aclanthology.org/Y11-1060/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Santorini, B.
    (2016) Annotation manual for the Penn Historical Corpora and the York-Helsinki Corpus of Early English Correspondence. www.ling.upenn.edu/~beatrice/annotation/
  25. Schneider, G.
    (2008) Hybrid Long-Distance Functional Dependency Parsing [Doctoral dissertation, University of Zurich]. Zurich Open Repository and Archive. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/7188/
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2012) Using semantic resources to improve a syntactic dependency parser. InV. Barbu Mititelu, O. Popescu, & V. Pekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2012 Conference Workshop ‘Semantic Relations II’, Istanbul, Turkey, 22 May 2012 – 22 May 2012 (pp.67–76). University of Istanbul. https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/63507/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Schneider, G., Lehmann, H. M., & Schneider, P.
    (2015) Parsing Early Modern English corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30(3), 423–439. https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article/30/3/423/345257. 10.1093/llc/fqu001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schneider, G., Pettersson, E., & Percillier, M.
    (2017) Comparing rule-based and SMT-based spelling normalisation for English historical texts. InG. Bouma & Y. Adesam (Eds.), Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Processing Historical Language (pp.40–46). Linköping University Electronic Press. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0508/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schneider, G.
    (2022) Syntactic changes in verbal clauses and noun phrases from 1500 onwards. InLos, B., Cowie, C., & Honeybone, P. (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in Structure and Meaning (pp.163–200). Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.358.07sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.07sch [Google Scholar]
  30. Schütze, C.
    (1995) PP attachment and argumenthood. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics261, 95–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2012) Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. InT. Nevalainen & E. Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp.654–665). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0056 [Google Scholar]
  32. Thim, S.
    (2012) Phrasal Verbs: The English Verb-Particle Construction and its History. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110257038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110257038 [Google Scholar]
  33. Traugott, E.
    (1992) Syntax. InR. Hogg (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language (pp.168–289). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264747.005 [Google Scholar]
  34. Vadas, D., & Curran, J.
    (2011) Parsing noun phrases in the Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 37(4), 753–809. 10.1162/COLI_a_00076
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00076 [Google Scholar]
  35. Volk, M.
    (2001) Exploiting the WWW as a corpus to resolve PP attachment ambiguities. InP. Rayson, A. Wilson, T. McEnery, A. Hardie, & S. Khoja. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, Lancaster University, 29 March – 2 April 2001. (pp.601–606). Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Zehentner, E., & Hundt, M.
    (2022) Prepositions in Early Modern English argument structure. InB. Los, C. Cowie, P. Honeybone, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Change in structure and meaning (pp.202–224). Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.358.08zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.358.08zeh [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