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

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 2.135

CiteScore 2016: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 1.247
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.485

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 27, Issue 2 (May 2016)

Issues

When variables align: A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model of English permissive constructions

Natalia Levshina
Published Online: 2016-03-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0054

Abstract

This paper is a quantitative multifactorial study of the near-synonymous constructions let+V, allow+to V and permit+to V based on the British National Corpus. The study investigates the differences between these constructions with the help of 23 formal, semantic, social and collostructional variables. A Bayesian multinomial mixed-effects model reveals a remarkable alignment of the variables that represent different dimensions of variation, namely, the linguistic distance between the predicates, the conceptual distance between the events they represent, the distance between the speaker and the Permitter and Permittee on the animacy/entrenchment/empathy hierarchy, the social and communicative distance between the interlocutors, as well as the strength of collostructional attraction between the constructions and second verb slot fillers. The paper offers several possible explanations for this alignment from a cognitive, functional and historical perspective.

Keywords: permissive causation; multifactorial grammar; multinomial mixed-effects models; Bayesian statistics; iconicity; frequency

References

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

  • Arppe, Antti. 2008. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography – A study of synonymy. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & Harald Baayen. 2015. Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967 [stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967 (accessed 31 October 2015).

  • Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

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

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Thomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language. Vol. II, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

  • Carpenter, Bob, Andrew Gelman, Matt Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Marcus Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li &Allen Riddell. In press. Stan: A probabilistic programming language. Journal of Statistical Software.

  • Cristofaro, Sonia. 2012. Cognitive explanations, distributional evidence, and diachrony. Studies in Language 36(3). 645–670.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2008. On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 49–57.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stéphanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Deane, Paul D. 1992. Grammar in mind and brain. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3). 626–657.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar. 2010. Structuring the Lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343–365. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English infinitive. London &New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite complementation: A usage-based study of infinitive and -ing clauses in English. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick. 2006. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1). 1–24.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga. 1992a. Syntactic change and borrowing: The case of the accusative-and-infinitive construction in English. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 17–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga. 1992b. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Volume II: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga. 1995. The distinction between bare and to-infinitival complements in late Middle English. Diachronica 12. 1–30.Google Scholar

  • Fischer, Olga. 2008. On analogy and the motivation for grammaticalization. Studies in Language 32(2). 336–382.Google Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen & Yves Peirsman (eds.). 2010. Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gelman, Andrew, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Vehtari & Donald B. Rubin. 2014. Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3). 333–377.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York & London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 36(3). 477–510.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 505–536.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4). 781–819.Google Scholar

  • Han, Weifeng, Antti Arppe & John Newman. In press. Topic marking in a Shanghainese corpus: From observation to prediction. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog & Elif Bamyaci. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50. 587–625. DOI 10.1017/S0022226714000255.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Compiled by Matti Rissanen (Project leader), Merja Kytö (Project secretary); Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö (Old English); Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen (Middle English); Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (Early Modern English)

  • Heylen, Kris. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 241–264. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47(2). 340–358.Google Scholar

  • Kemmer, Susanne & Arie Verhagen. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5. 115–156.Google Scholar

  • Klein, Dan & Christopher D. Manning. 2003. Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Kristiansen, Gitte & René Dirven (eds.). 2008. Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models and social systems. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kruschke, John K. 2011. Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R and BUGS. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Küchenhoff, Helmut & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 2015. Reply to “More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff” by Stefan Th. Gries. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 537–547.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. II, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • LDCE Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: New Edition (2003). Harlow: Longman.

  • Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik. 1994. A communicative grammar of English, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. 2011. Doe wat je niet laten kan [Do what you cannot let]: A usage-based study of Dutch causative constructions. Leuven: University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. Forthcoming. Why we need a token-based typology: A corpus-based study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica.

  • Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lunn, David, Christopher Jackson, Nicky Best, Andrew Thomas & David Spiegelhalter. 2013. The BUGS book: A practical introduction to Bayesian analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

  • Mair, Christian. 2008. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Miglio, Viola G., Stefan Th. Gries, Michael J. Harris, Eva M. Wheeler & Raquel Santana-Paixão. 2013. Spanish lo(s)-le(s) clitic alternations in psych verbs: A multifactorial corpus-based analysis. In Jennifer C. Amaro, Gillian Lord, Ana de Prada Pérez & Jessi E. Aaron (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 268–278. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

  • Mittwoch, Anita. 1990. On the distribution of bare infinitive complements in English. Journal of Linguistics 26. 103–131.Google Scholar

  • Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen. Tübingen: TBL.Google Scholar

  • Pedersen, Ted & Rebecca Bruce. 1996. What to infer from a description. Technical Report 96-CSE-04, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.

  • R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 23 November 2015)Google Scholar

  • Rohdenburg, Günther. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149–182.Google Scholar

  • Rohdenburg, Günther. 2003. Horror aequi and cognitive complexity as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers. In Günther Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–250. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2014. Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns, 239–295. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Helmut Küchenhoff. 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

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

  • Sorensen, Tanner, Sven Hohenstein & Shravan Vasishth. In preparation. Bayesian Linear Mixed Models using Stan: A tutorial for psychologists, linguists, and cognitive scientists. http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/statistics/BayesLMMs.html (accessed 22 November 2015).

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

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43.Google Scholar

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A., & R. Harald Baayen. 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.Google Scholar

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Vasishth, Shravan, Zhong Chen, Qiang Li & Guelian Guo. 2013. Processing Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for the subject-relative advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10). 1–14. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077006 (accessed 21 November 2015).Google Scholar

  • Vehtari, Aki, Andrew Gelman & Jonah Gabry. 2015. Efficient implementation of leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC for evaluating fitted Bayesian models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.04544.Google Scholar

  • Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 253–290.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

About the article

Received: 2015-05-23

Revised: 2015-11-25

Accepted: 2016-02-14

Published Online: 2016-03-26

Published in Print: 2016-05-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0054.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

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]
Bruno Nicenboim and Shravan Vasishth
Language and Linguistics Compass, 2016, Volume 10, Number 11, Page 591

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in