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

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 30, Issue 1


The more data, the better: A usage-based account of the English comparative correlative construction

Thomas Hoffmann
  • Corresponding author
  • English and American Studies, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jakob Horsch / Thomas Brunner
Published Online: 2018-11-28 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0036


Languages are complex systems that allow speakers to produce novel grammatical utterances. Yet, linguists differ as to how general and abstract they think the mental representation of speakers have to be to give rise to this grammatical creativity. In order to shed light on these questions, the present study looks at one specific construction type, English comparative correlatives, that turns out to be particularly interesting in this context: on the one hand it has been described in terms of one of the most abstract and general syntactic rules, on the other hand it shows specific idiomatic structures that are often produced without any variation (e.g. the more, the merrier). While the syntax and semantics of the English Comparative Correlative (CC) construction have received considerable attention in the literature, so far only a small number of usage-based analyses have been published on the topic. These either only relied on small databases or focussed only on the productivity of one slot in the construction. In contrast to this, the present study analyses more than 1,400 CC tokens sampled from COCA. The results of the present study yield important results concerning English CC constructions, including the schematicity and generality of their mental representations.

Keywords: construction grammar; syntax; comparative correlatives; usage-based approach


  • Barðdal, Johanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17(1). 39–106.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. (Constructional Approaches to Language 8.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Barðdal, Johanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: A false dichotomy. Morphology 21(1). 619–654.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20(3). 229–271.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Borsley, Robert. D. 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In Stefan Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 70–92. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Comparative and equative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, University of Massachusetts Amherst, and at the 9th Semfest, Stanford.Google Scholar

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

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–455.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

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

  • Cappelle, Bert. 2011. The thethe… construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics 43(1). 99–117.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in Generative Grammar 9) Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publication.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz, (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 543–571.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 62.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Davies, Mark. 2009. The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English (1990–2008+ ): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14. 159–190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 497–532.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick C. 2007. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1). 1–24.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Fillmore, Charles J. 1987. Varieties of conditional sentences. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 3. 163–182.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, Laura Michaelis & Ivan Sag. 2007. Sign-based construction grammar. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

  • Francis, W. Nelson & Henry Kučera 1979. BROWN corpus manual: Manual of information to accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers. Revised and Amplified version. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/BROWN/INDEX.HTM

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

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7. 219–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalisation in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen/index.html. (accessed 29 January 2018).

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2013a. Data in construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 93–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2013b. 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1). 137–165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015a. Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of english corpus linguistics, 50–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th 2015b. The role of quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: corpus and experimental data on (relative) frequency and contingency of words and constructions. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman, & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigmsnew paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 311–325. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2013. Obtaining introspective acceptability judgements. In Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 99–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014a. The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the Dynamic Model. In Sarah Buschfeld, Thomas Hoffmann, Magnus Huber & Alexander Kautzsch (eds.), The evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and beyond. (Varieties of English Around the World G49.), 160–180. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2014b. Comparing English comparative correlatives. Habilitationsschrift (Post-Doc thesis), Osnabrück University.Google Scholar

  • Hoffmann, Thomas. 2017. Construction grammars. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 310–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Comparative constructions. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language, 1097–1170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Richard A. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Hudson, Richard A. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hundt, Marianne, Andrea Sand & Paul Skandera. 1999. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg – Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FROWN/INDEX.HTM

  • Hundt, Marianne, Andrea Sand & Rainer Siemund. 1998. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg – LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/FLOB/INDEX.HTM

  • Iwasaki, Eiichi & Andrew Radford. 2009. Comparative correlatives in English: A minimalist-cartographic analysis. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 57(6). 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Johansson, Stig, Geoffrey N. Leech & Helen Goodluck. 1978. Manual information to accompany the LANCASTER-OSLO/BERGEN CORPUS of British English, for use with digital computers. Oslo: University of Oslo. http://clu.uni.no/icame/manuals/LOB/INDEX.HTM

  • Kim, Jong-Bok. 2011. English comparative correlative construction: Interactions between lexicon and constructions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 36(2). 307–336.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, Jong-Bok & Peter Sells. 2011. The big mess construction: Interactions between the lexicon and constructions. English Language and Linguistics 15. 335–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Langacker, Ron W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • McCawley, James D. 1988. The comparative conditional construction in English, German, and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 176–187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Michaelis, Laura A. 1994. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18. 45–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nelson, Gerald, Sean Wallis & Bas Aarts. 2002. Exploring natural language: Working with the British component of the International corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org.

  • Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86(3). 486–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Susanne Flach. 2017. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 101–127. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

  • Taylor, Heather. 2013. Grammar deconstructed: Constructions and the curious case of the comparative correlative. PhD thesis, University of Maryland. drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14114

  • Van Eynde, Frank. 2007. The big mess construction. In Stefan Müller (ed.), The Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 415–433. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zeldes, Amir. 2009. Quantifying constructional productivity with unseen slot members. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic Creativity, June 5, Boulder CO, 47–54.Google Scholar

  • Zeldes, Amir. 2013. Productive argument selection: Is lexical semantics enough? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2). 263–291.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-04-03

Accepted: 2018-07-06

Revised: 2018-07-04

Published Online: 2018-11-28

Published in Print: 2019-02-25

This study was supported in part by a German Research Foundation (DFG) grant (HO 3904/5-1).

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 1–36, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0036.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in