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 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

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

A lesson from associative learning: asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions

Guillaume Desagulier
  • Corresponding author
  • MoDyCo – Université Paris 8, CNRS, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, UMR 7114, 200 avenue de la République, Nanterre 92001, France
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012

Abstract

Non-redundant taxonomic models of construction grammar posit that only fully productive patterns qualify as constructions because they license an infinity of expressions. Redundant models claim that, despite subregularities and exceptions, partially productive patterns also count as constructions, providing the overall meanings of such patterns are not the strict sums of their parts. Because productivity is a major bone of contention between redundant and non-redundant construction grammar taxonomies, I examine the productivity of A as NP which, according to Kay (2013), is not a “construction” but merely a “pattern of coining” due to its limited type productivity. Expanding on Gries (2013), this paper explores how a combination of symmetric and asymmetric association measures can contribute to the study of the “Productivity Complex” described in Zeldes (2012). Although the productivity of A as NP is admittedly limited at its most schematic level, some partially filled subschemas such as white/black as NP or A as hell/death are arguably productive.

Keywords: asymmetry; association measures; ΔΡ (delta P); collostructional analysis; construction grammar; adjectives; intensification; productivity

References

  • Allan, L. G. 1980. A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15(3). 147–149.Google Scholar

  • Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 1989. A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity. Statistical analysis and psycholinguistic interpretation. Amsterdam: Centrum Wiskunde en Informatica.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht & London: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht & London: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 2001. Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11. 295–328.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. H. & Lieber, R. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–843.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3). 209–226.Google Scholar

  • Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Boas, H. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Burnard, L. 2000. Reference guide for the British National Corpus (World Edition). Web Page. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/archive/worldURG/urg.pdf (accessed 14 August 2015)

  • Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Church, K., Gale, W. A., Hanks, P., & Hindle, D. 1991. Using statistics in lexical analysis. In U. Zernik (ed.), Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon, 115–164. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Church, K. & Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1). 22–29.Google Scholar

  • Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, W. & Clausner, T. C. 1997. Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science 21(3). 247–282.Google Scholar

  • Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1). 61–74.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, N. 2006. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1). 1–124.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, N. & Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 187–220.Google Scholar

  • Evert, S. 2005. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations (PhD dissertation, Universität Stuttgart). http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2005/2371/pdf/Evert2005phd.pdf (accessed 14 August 2015).Google Scholar

  • Evert, S. 2009. Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, 1212–1248. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Evert, S. & Baroni, M. 2006. The zipfR library: Words and other rare events in R. Presentation at useR! 2006: The Second R User Conference, Vienna, Austria.

  • Evert, S. & Baroni, M. 2007. zipfR: word frequency distributions in R. In Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics on interactive posters and demonstration sessions (29–32). (R package version 0.6-6 of 2012-04-03). Prague, Czech Republic.

  • Ferraresi, A. 2007. Building a very large corpus of English obtained by web crawling: ukWaC. University of Bologna, Master’s thesis.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, C. 1997. Construction Grammar lecture notes. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html (accessed 14 August 2015).

  • Fillmore, C. 2002. “Idiomaticity”. http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/lec02.html (accessed 14 August 2015).

  • Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538.Google Scholar

  • Gaeta, L. & Ricca, D. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44(1). 57–89.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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. 2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1). 93–127.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2. a program for r for windows 2.x. Comp. software. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen/coll.analysis.r (accessed 14 August 2015).

  • Gries, S. T. 2013. 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next …. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 137–166.Google Scholar

  • Gries, S. T. & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004a. Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 225–236. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

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

  • Hay, J. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(4). 1041–1070.Google Scholar

  • Hay, J. & Baayen, R. H. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 203–235. Dordrecht & London: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Hay, J. & Baayen, R. H. 2003. Phonotactics, parsing, and productivity. Rivista di Linguistica 15(1). 99–130.Google Scholar

  • Husson, F., Josse, J., Pagès, J., & Lê, S. 2009. FactoMineR, an R package dedicated for multivariate analysis. http://factominer.free.fr/index.html (accessed 14 August 2015).

  • Husson, F., Lê, S., & Pagès, J. 2011. Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R. London: Chapman and Hall – CRC.Google Scholar

  • Jackendoff, R. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84(1). 8–28.Google Scholar

  • Kay, P. 2013. The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 32–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.Google Scholar

  • Kilgarriff, A. 2001. Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6(1). 97–133.Google Scholar

  • Kilgarriff, A. 2005. Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 263–276.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, R. W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10(1). 1–40.Google Scholar

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

  • Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, R. W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Manning, C. D. & Schütze, H. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Pavlov, I. P. 1927. Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Oxford University Press: Humphrey Milford.Google Scholar

  • Pecina, P. 2010. Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation 44(1). 137–158.Google Scholar

  • Pedersen, T. 1996. Fishing for exactness. In Proceedings of the south-central SAS users group conference, 188–200. Texas: SAS Users Group.Google Scholar

  • Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 14 August 2015).

  • Rescorla, R. A. 1968. Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 66. 1–5.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, H.-J. & Küchenhoff, H. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3). 531–577.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. 2011. Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Steels, L. 2012. Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

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

  • Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–46.Google Scholar

  • Wagner, A. R. & Rescorla, R. A. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (eds.), Classical conditioning ii, 64–99. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.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

  • Yates, F. 1984. Tests of significance for 2×2 contigency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 147(3). 426–463.Google Scholar

  • Zeldes, A. 2012. Productivity in argument selection: From morphology to syntax. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-10-10

Published in Print: 2016-10-01


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 173–219, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in