Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2018: 0.84

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.388
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.245

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Lexeme-based collexeme analysis with DepCluster

Xuri Tang
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-08-18 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0007

Abstract

This paper introduces a tool for lexeme-based collexeme analysis. The tool uses cluster analysis to generate the typical constructions of a given lexeme and computes the collostruction strength of the constructions. These two functions enable the tool to facilitate efficient studies of lexeme–construction interactions in large-scale data. As a case study, the paper examines the lexeme “cause”. It shows that the tool provides strong statistical evidence that confirms earlier findings about the negative semantic prosody of the lexeme. In addition, the collexeme analyses with the tool show that the lexeme is typically used in attitudinal constructions. The case study demonstrates that the tool can enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness and granularity in lexeme-based collexeme analysis.

Keywords: collexeme analysis; cluster; Dependency Grammar; semantic prosody; attitudinal construction

References

  • Blondel, V. D., A.Gajardo, M. Heymans, P. Senellart & P. V. Dooren. 2004. A measure of similarity between graph vertices: Applications to synonym extraction and web searching. SIAM Review 46(4). 647–666.Google Scholar

  • Boas, H. C. & I. A. Sag. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, J. L., R. D. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Depraetere, I. 2012. Time in sentences with modal verbs. In R. I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 989–1019. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, N. C. & F. Ferreira–Junior. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3). 370–385.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, N. C. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 2009. Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning 59. 90–125.Google Scholar

  • Ester, M., H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander & X. Xu. 1996. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD–96).

  • Fillmore, C. J. 2013. Berkeley construction grammar. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 111–132. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, C. J., P. Key & M. K. O. Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 1996. Construction grammar. In K. Brown & J. Miller (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories, 68–71. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gordon, A. S. & R. Swanson. 2007. Generalizing Semantic Role Annotations Across Syntactically Similar Verbs. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic.

  • Gries, S. T. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4). 365–399.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. 2012. Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics. Studies in Language 36(3). 477–510.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. 2013. Data in Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 93–110. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. 2015. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics 26. 505.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. & A. Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129.Google Scholar

  • Halkidi, M., Y. Batistakis & M. Vazirgiannis. 2001. On clustering validation techniques. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 17(2–3). 107–145.Google Scholar

  • Halkidi, M. & M. Vazirgiannis. 2001. Clustering Validity Assessment: Finding the Optimal Partitioning of a Data Set. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

  • Hilpert, M. 2007. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to grammaticalization. (Ph.D.), Rice University. http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3257333

  • Hunston, S. 2007. Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2). 249–268.Google Scholar

  • Hunston, S. & G. Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English (pp. xi, 288 p.). http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ascc/Doc?id=5000193

  • Johannesson, M. 2000. Modelling asymmetric similarity with prominence. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 53(1). 121–139.Google Scholar

  • Kawahara, D., D. W. Peterson, O. Popescu & M. Palmer. 2014. Inducing Example-based Semantic Frames from a Massive Amount of Verb Uses. Paper presented at the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg, Sweden.

  • Koo, T. & M. Collins. 2010. Efficient third-order dependency parsers. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Liu, Y., Z. Li, H. Xiong, X. Gao & J. Wu. 2010. Understanding of internal clustering validation measures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

  • Marneffe, M.-C. D. & C. D. Manning. 2008. The Stanford typed dependencies representation. Paper presented at the Coling 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, Manchester, United Kingdom.

  • McEnery, T. & A. Hardie. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mortelmans, T. 2007. Modality in cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 869–889. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mukherjee, J. & S. T. Gries. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1). 27–51.Google Scholar

  • Nosovskiy, G. V., D. Liu & O. Sourina. 2008. Automatic clustering and boundary detection algorithm based on adaptive influence function. Pattern Recognition 41(2008). 2757–2776.Google Scholar

  • Ortony, A., R. J. Vondruska, M. A. Foss & L. E. Jones. 1985. Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 24(5). 569–594.Google Scholar

  • Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Russell, S. J., P. Norvig & E. Davis. 2010. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar

  • Sagae, K. & A. S. Gordon. 2009. Clustering words by syntactic similarity improves dependency parsing of predicate-argument structures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, Paris, France.

  • Socher, R., J. Bauer, C. D. Manning & A. Y. Ng. 2013. Parsing With Compositional Vector Grammars. Paper presented at the ACL 2013.

  • Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. Collostructional analysis. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 290–306. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, A. & S. T. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, A. & S. T. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.Google Scholar

  • Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Function of Language 2(1). 1–22.Google Scholar

  • Theodoridis, S. & K. Koutroumbas. 2009. Pattern recognition, 4th edn. Burlington, MA & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Tullo, C. & J. Hurford. 2003. Modelling Zipfian Distributions in Language. Paper presented at the Language Evolution and Computation Workshop/Course at ESSLLI, Vienna.

  • Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84. 327–352.Google Scholar

  • Van der Auwera, J. & A. Hammann. 2005. Situational possibility; Epistemic possibility; Overlap between epistemic and situational possibility. In M. Haspelmath (ed.), The world atlas of language structures. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Webelhuth, G. 2012. The distribution of that-clause in English: An SBCG account. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (ed.), Sign-based construction grammar, 203–228. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications/Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Wiechmann, D. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 253–290.Google Scholar

  • Xiao, R. & T. McEnery. 2006. Collocations, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1). 103–129.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-08-18

Published in Print: 2017-05-01


The National Social Science Fund of China, (Grant / Award Number: ‘11CYY030’).


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 165–202, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0007.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Xuri Tang and Gaixiang Liu
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2018, Volume 23, Number 4, Page 437

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in