1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 29, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The current study investigates the probabilistic conditioning of the Mandarin locative alternation. We adopt a corpus-based multivariate approach to analyze 2,836 observations of locative variants from a large Chinese corpus and annotated manually for various language-internal and language-external constraints. Multivariate modeling reveals that the Mandarin locative alternation is not only influenced by semantic predictors like affectedness and telicity, but also by previously unexplored syntactic and language-external constraints, such as complexity and animacy of locatum and location, accessibility of locatum, pronominality, definiteness of location, length ratio and register. Notably, the effects of affectedness, definiteness and pronominality are broadly parallel in both the Mandarin locative alternation and its English counterpart. We thus contribute to theorizing in corpus-based variationist linguistics by uncovering the probabilistic grammar of the locative alternation in Mandarin Chinese, and by identifying the constraints that may be universal across languages.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
2024-01-29
2025-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, M.
    (1971) The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R.
    (2000) Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering. Language, 76(1), 28–55. 10.1353/lan.2000.0045
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, H.
    (2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beavers, J.
    (2011) On affectedness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 335–370. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9124‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9124-6 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D.
    (1994) An analytical framework for register studies. InD. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp.31–56). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195083644.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195083644.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, J.
    (2007) Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. InS. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base (pp.75–96). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198621.75
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198621.75 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Bresnan, J., & Hay, J.
    (2008) Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118(2), 245–259. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, P.
    (2004) Identifiability and definiteness in Chinese. Linguistics, 42(6), 1129–118410.1515/ling.2004.42.6.1129
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.42.6.1129 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H.
    (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811. 10.2307/412745
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  12. D’Elia, S.
    (2016) The Spray/load and Dative Alternations: Aligning VP Structure and Contextual Effects [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kent]. Kent Academic Repository. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/54773
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowty, D.
    (1991) Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  14. Engel, A., Grafmiller, J., Rosseel, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2022) Assessing the complexity of lectal competence: The register-specificity of the dative alternation after give. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(4), 727–766. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0107 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fang, Y., & Liu, H.
    (2021) Predicting syntactic choice in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based analysis of ba sentences and SVO sentences. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(2), 219–250. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0005 [Google Scholar]
  16. Givón, T.
    (1991) Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Linguistics, 15(1), 85–114. 10.1075/cilt.110.07giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.110.07giv [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–56. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  19. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative Alternation: A Lexical-constructional Approach. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  20. Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W.
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeitund Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte [Language of proximity – language of distance: Orality and writtenness in the interplay of language theory and language history]. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 361, 15–43. 10.1515/9783110244922.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuo, P.
    (2019) On locative alternation verbs in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric, 45(2), 141–166. 10.1075/consl.00006.kuo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/consl.00006.kuo [Google Scholar]
  22. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referent. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  24. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1991) Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition, 41(1–3), 123–151. 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90034‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90034-2 [Google Scholar]
  25. (1998) Morphology and Lexical Semantics. InA. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp.248–271). Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405166348.ch12
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166348.ch12 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to Do Linguistics with R. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, Y., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Zhang, W.
    (2023) The theme-recipient alternation in Mandarin Chinese: Tracking syntactic variation across seven centuries. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(2), 207–235. 10.1515/cllt‑2021‑0048
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2021-0048 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin, X., Wang, L., & Sun, D.
    (1994) 现代汉语动词大词典 [Dictionary on verbs in Mandarin]. Beijing Language Institute Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Lu, J.
    (2016) 从语言信息结构视角重新认识“把”字句 [Re-understanding of the Ba-construction from an information structure perspective]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 11, 1–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Otani, N.
    (2020) A usage-based analysis of alternating syntactic constructions: The case of spray/load constructions and clear constructions. Gragoatá, 25(52), 856–878. https://periodicos.uff.br/gragoata/article/view/40815. 10.22409/gragoata.v25i52.40815
     https://doi.org/10.22409/gragoata.v25i52.40815 [Google Scholar]
  31. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2018) A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch: Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 99–131. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0027 [Google Scholar]
  34. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (1985) A Case Study in Lexical Analysis: The Locative Alternation. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B.
    (2010) Reflections on manner/result complementarity. InH. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure (pp.21–38). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rohdenburg, G.
    (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  39. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 281, 673–710. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  40. Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M.
    (2016) Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37(2), 109–137. 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm [Google Scholar]
  41. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 62(4), 685–701. 10.1017/cnj.2017.34
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.34 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tagliamonte, S.
    (2012) Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, H.
    (2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  44. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tenny, C.
    (1987) Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tomlin, R.
    (1986) Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. Croon Helm. 10.4324/9781315857466
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315857466 [Google Scholar]
  47. Xu, F.
    (1998) 现代汉语置放动词配价研究 [On the Valence of Laying-verbs in Mandarin]. Language Learning and Research, 31, 86–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Xun, E., Rao, G., Xiao, X., & Zang, J.
    (2016) 大数据背景下BCC语料库的研制 [The construction of the BCC Corpus in the age of Big Data]. Corpus Linguistics, 31(1), 93–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zaenen, A., Carlette, J., Garretson, G., Bresnan, J., Koontz-Garboden, A., Nikitina, T., O’Connor, C., & Wasow, T.
    (2004) Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. InD. Byron & B. Webber (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation (pp.118–125). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W04-0216.pdf. 10.3115/1608938.1608954
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1608938.1608954 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, D., & Xu, J.
    (2019) 英汉与格交替现象的多因素研究——逻辑回归分析 [A Multifactorial Study of Dative Alternation in English and Chinese]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 42(2), 24–33.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
Loading
Modeling the locative alternation in Mandarin Chinese
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 29, 258 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22072.xu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conditional random forest; corpus-based variationist linguistics; locative alternation; Mandarin Chinese; mixed-effects logistic regression

Most Cited

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