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

2 Issues per year


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 …

What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses

Seth Mehl
  • Corresponding author
  • School of English, University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover Street, S3 7RA Sheffield, UK
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-03-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0039

Abstract

Gilquin (2008, What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In Jean-Remi Lapaire, Guillaume Desagulier & Jean-Baptiste Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, 235–255. Bordeaux: Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux) reported that light uses of verbs (e.g. make use) tend to outnumber concrete uses of the same verbs (e.g. make furniture) in corpora, whereas concrete senses tend to outnumber light senses in responses to elicitation tests. The differences between corpus frequency and cognitive salience remain an important and much-discussed question (cf. Arppe et al. 2010, Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27). The question is particularly complicated because both corpus frequency and cognitive salience are difficult to define, and are often left undefined. Operationalising and defining corpus frequencies are the issues at the heart of the present paper, which includes a close, manual semantic analysis of nearly 6,000 instances of three polysemous verbs with light and concrete uses, make, take, and give, in the British component of the International Corpus of English. The paper compares semasiological frequencies like those measured by Gilquin (2008) to onomasiological frequency measurements (cf. Geeraerts 1997, Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press). Methodologically, the paper demonstrates that these approaches address fundamentally different research questions, and offer dramatically different results. Findings indicate that corpus frequencies in speech may correlate with elicitation test results, if the corpus frequencies are measured onomasiologically rather than semasiologically; I refer to Geeraerts’s (2010, Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press) hypothesis of onomasiological salience in explaining this observation.

Keywords: semantics; prototypes; onomasiology

References

  • Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Bas Aarts & Charles Meyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Arppe, Antti, Gaetanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos & Tony McEnery. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word ‘Muslim’ in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3). 255–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Balasubramanian, Chandrika. 2009. Circumstance adverbials in registers of Indian English. World Englishes 28(4). 485–508.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

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

  • Collins CoBUILD English Dictionary. 1995. 2nd edn. Glasgow: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th Gries. 2012. Frequency effects in language representation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New approach to English Grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. She gave him a look, they both had a laugh and then took a stroll: GIVE A VERB, HAVE A VERB and TAKE A VERB constructions. In Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), A Semantic approach to English Grammar, 459–483. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Evison, Jane. 2010. What are the basics of analysing a corpus?. In Anne O’Keefe & Michael McCarthy (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 122–135. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Fano, Robert M. 1961. Transmission of information: A statistical theory of communications. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Fitzmaurice, Susan, Justyna A. Robinson, Marc Alexander, Iona C. Hine, Seth Mehl & Fraser Dallachy. 2017. Linguistic DNA: Investigating conceptual change in Early Modern English discourse. Studia Neophilologica 89. 21–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fuchs, Robert. 2012. Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English. English World-Wide 33(1). 27–52.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fuchs, Robert, Ulrike Gut & Taiwo Soneye. 2013. “We just don’t even know”: The usage of the pragmatic focus particles even and still in Nigerian English. English World-Wide 34(2). 123–145.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1988. Where does prototypicality come from? In Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 207–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006 [1989]. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In Dirk Geeraerts, Words and other wonders, 3–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gilquin, Gaetanelle. 2006. The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In Stefan Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 159–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gilquin, Gaetanelle. 2008. What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In Jean-Remi Lapaire, Guillaume Desagulier & Jean-Baptiste Guignard (eds.), From gram to mind: Grammar as cognition, 235–255. Bordeaux: Presse Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. Introducing ICE. In Sidney Greenbaum (ed.), Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English, 3–12. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many senses of to run. In Stefan Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar Divjak. 2012. Frequency effects in language learning and processing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Haase, Christoph. 1994. Conceptual specifics in East African English: Quantitative arguments from the ICE-East Africa corpus. World Englishes 23(2). 261–268.Google Scholar

  • Heylen, Kris, Jose Tummers & Dirk Geeraerts. 2008. Methodological issues in corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics. In Gitte Kristiansen & René Dirven (ed.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems, 91–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hundt, Marianne. 2009. How often to things get V-ed in Philippine and Singapore English? A case study of the get – passive in two outer-circle varieties of English. In Rhonwen Bowen, Mats Mobarg & Solve Ohlander (eds.), Corpora and discourse – and stuff: Papers in honor of Karin Aijmer. Gothenburg Studies in English 96, 121–131. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Google Scholar

  • Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VI: Morphology. London: Bradford and Dickens.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, Mark. 2007. The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Karimi, Simin. 2013. Introduction. Lingua 135. 1–6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lange, Claudia. 2007. Focus marking in Indian English. English Worldwide 28(1). 89–118.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Sarah & Debra Ziegeler. 2006. Analysing a semantic corpus study across English dialects: Searching for paradigmatic parallels. In Andrew Wilson, Dawn Archer & Paul Rayson (eds.), Corpus linguistics around the world, 121–139. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

  • Lindqusit, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, Tony & Costas Gabrielatos. 2006. English corpus linguistics. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 33–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • McEnery, Tony & Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus linguistics, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mehl, Seth. 2017. Light verb semantics in the International Corpus of English: Onomasiological variation, identity evidence, and degrees of lightness. English Language and Linguistics. doi: (accessed 12 January, 2018).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mehl, Seth. In press (accepted 2017). Corpus onomasiology in world Englishes and concrete verbs make and give. World Englishes.Google Scholar

  • Nelson, G., Bas Aarts & S. A. Wallis. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Nordquist, D. 2004. Comparing elicited data and corpora. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 211–224. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Poutsma, H. 1926. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar

  • Ronan, Patricia & Gerold Schneider. 2015. Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(3). 326–354.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4(3). 328–350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1975a. Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology 7. 532–547.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1975b. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology 104(3). 192–233.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2007. Entrenchment, salience and basic levels. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 117–138. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schneider, Edgar W. 1994. How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in World Englishes. World Englishes 23. 227–249.Google Scholar

  • Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John. 2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John R. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wallis, S. A. 2009. Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods. London: UCL Survey of English Usage. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/staff/sean/resources/binomialpoisson.pdf (accessed 1 November 2016.).

  • Wallis, S. A. 2012. That vexed problem of choice: Reflections on experimental design and statistics with corpora. London: UCL Survey of English Usage. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/staff/sean/resources/vexedchoice.pdf (accessed 1 November 2016.).

  • Werner, Janina & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2012. Highly polysemous verbs in New Englishes: A corpus-based pilot study of Sri Lankan and Indian English. In Sebastian Hoffman (ed.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 249–266. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-03-27


Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0039.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in