Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 7:1 (2015) ► pp.1–46

Lectal constraining of lexical collocations

How a word’s company is influenced by the usage settings

 | University College Leuven
 | KU Leuven, Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics
Adopting a corpus-based approach, lexical collocations are reconsidered from a lectal perspective. Analyzing adjective-noun collocations, it will be shown that lexical collocations are conditioned by the language settings in which they are used. These lectal constraints do not only apply to lexical collocations as a measure of lexical association but also to their potential function as a determinant of other constructions. These results argue for the inclusion of the heterogeneity of the corpus settings in empirical linguistic models and for the integration of a full-fledged lectal dimension in theoretical frameworks advocating a usage-based methodology, such as construction grammar.
Keywords: lexical collocations, phrasal names, lectal constraining, usage-based linguistics, mixed-effects modeling
Published online: 28 January 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.1.01tum
References (98)
Archer, D. (Ed.). (2009). What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Rijn, H. van (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bates. D. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News, 51, 27–30.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (submitted). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Submitted to Journal of Statistical Software. Consulted at: [URL].
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bieman, C., Bildhauer, F., Evert, S., Goldhahn, D., Quasthoff, U., Schäfer, R., Simon, J., Swiezinsky, L., & Zesch, T. (2013). Scalable construction of high-quality web corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 23–60.Google Scholar
Blom, A. (1994). Het ondoorgrondelijk bijvoeglijk naamwoord [The inscrutable adjective]. Forum der Letteren, 35(2), 81–94.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2002a). Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14(4), 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002b). The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2009). Phrasal names: A constructionist analysis. Word Structure, 2(2), 219–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
. (2013). Construction morphology, a brief introduction. Morphology, 22(3), 343–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. (1999). Adjectives and adjective phrases (Modern Grammar of Dutch Working Papers 2). Tilburg: Universiteit Tilburg.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Church, K., & Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Schutter, G. (1997). The noun phrase in dutch. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86(3), 309–356.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2004). The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. Doctoral dissertation, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
. (2008). Corpora and collocations. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2015). A NLP Approach to the Evaluation of Web Corpora. Guest lecture, Leuven, 17 February 2015.
Ferraresi, A., Zanchetta, E., Baroni, M., & Bernardini, S. (2008). Introducing and evaluating ukWaC, a very large web-derived corpus of English. In S. Evert, A. Kilgarriff, & S. Sharoff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC−4) – Can we beat Google? Marrakech, 1 June 2008 (pp. 47–54).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930−1955. In J. Firth (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2005). Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics, functionalism, discourse studies: Common ground and new directions (pp. 163–190). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2014). Cognitive linguistics and language variation. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The bloomsburry companion to cognitive linguistics (pp. 202–217). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gledhill, C. (2000). Collocations in science writing. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 3–25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013a). 50-something years of work on collocations. What is or should be next. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013b). Sources of variability relevant to the cognitive sociolinguist, and corpus- as well as psycholinguistic methods and notions to handle them. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. (2014). A comparison of statistical methods for the aggregation of regional linguistic variation. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 53–88). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., & Speelman, D. (2007). A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 161–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er ‘there’: regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In R. Dirven & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 153–204). Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, W. de & Trommelen, M. (1993). Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: een overzicht van de woordvorming [Morphological textbook of Dutch: an overview of word formation]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de, & Toorn, M.C. van den. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff – Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harrell, F. (2001). Regression modeling strategies, with applications to linear models, survival analysis and logistic regression. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K., Tummers, J., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). Methodological issues in corpus-based cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 91–128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honselaar, W. (1980). On the semantics of adjective-noun combinations. In A. Barentsen, B. Groen, & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Studies in slavic and general linguistics (pp. 187–206). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Horst, J. van der (1995). Analytische taalkunde [Analytical linguistics]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hüning, M. (2004). Over woorden en woordgroepen: A+N-verbindingen in het Nederlands en het Duits [About words and phrases: A+N sequences in Dutch and German]. In S. Kiedron & A. Kowalska-Szubert (Eds.), Thesaurus polyglottus et flores quadrilingues. Festschrift für Stanislaw Predota zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 159–171). Wroclaw: ATUT.Google Scholar
. (2010). Adjective + Noun constructions between syntax and word formation in Dutch and German. In S. Michel & M. Onysko (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to word formation (pp. 195–218). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., Nesset, T., & Baayen, R.H. (2010). Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(1), 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, A., & Gee, M. (2009). Weaving web data into a diachronic corpus patchwork. In A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: Refinements & reassessments (pp. 255–279). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, F., & Lapata, M. (2003). Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Computational Linguistics, 29(3), 459–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (2005). Language is never, ever, ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 263–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Reddy, S., Pomikálek, J., & Avinesh, P. (2010). A corpus factory for many languages. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2010, Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 904–910).Google Scholar
Kristianen, G. (2008). Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In R. Dirven & G. Kristiansen (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 45–88). Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D. (2013). Introduction. Contexts and usage in cognitive sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society, 11, 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebrun, Y., & Schurmans-Swillen, G. (1966). Verbogen tegenover onverbogen adjectieven in de taal van de Zuidnederlandse dagbladpers [Inflected vs. uninflected adjectives in the language of the Belgian Dutch daily press]. Taal en Tongval, 18(1), 175–187.Google Scholar
Levshina, N., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2013). Towards a 3D-grammar: Interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic factors in the use of Dutch causative constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 34–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. (2007). Varieties of English around the world: Collocational and cultural profiles. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 437–468). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manning, C., & Schütze, H. (2002). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I., & Wasow, T. (1994). Idioms. Language, 70(3), 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odijk, J. (1992). Uninflected adjectives in Dutch. In R. Bok-Bennema & R. van Hout (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 9 (pp. 197–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N. (2004). The design of the spoken Dutch corpus. In P. Peters, P. Collins, & A. Smith (Eds.), New frontiers of corpus research (pp. 105–112). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Pedersen, T. (1996). Fishing for Exactness. Proceedings of the South-Central SAS Users Group Conference (SCSUG−96) , Austin, TX, October 27−29 (pp. 188–200).
Rietveld, T., Hout, R. van, & Ernestus, M. (2004). Pitfalls in corpus research. Computers and the Humanities, 38(4), 343–362 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooij, J. de. (1980a). Ons bruin(e) paard I [Our brown(-infl) horse I]. Taal en Tongval, 32(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
. (1980b). Ons bruin(e) paard II [Our brown(-infl) horse II]. Taal en Tongval, 32(2), 109–129.Google Scholar
Ruette, T., Geeraerts, D., Peirsman, Y., & Speelman, D. (2014). Semantic weighting mechanisms in scalable lexical sociolectometry. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 178–198). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, R., & Bildhauer, F. (2012). Building Large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, M. Doğan, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12) (pp. 486–493).Google Scholar
Schlücker, B., & Plag, I. (2011). Compound or phrase? Analogy in naming. Lingua, 121(9), 1539–1551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2013). It is … quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested (BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-en construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 17–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities, 371, 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Channel and constructional meaning: A collostructional case study. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social Systems (pp. 129–152). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sterkenburg, P. Van. (1993). Gelexicaliseerde woordgroepen van het type A+N [Lexicalized A+N phrases]. Tabu, 23(1−2), 131–142.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2010). The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In D. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen, & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp. 141–166). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In K. Börjars, D. Denison, & A. Scott (Eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession (pp. 89–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014). Forests, trees, corpora, and dialect grammars. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Wälchli (Eds.), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 89–112). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, R.H. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tummers, J. (2005). Het naakt(e) adjectief. Kwantitatief-empirisch onderzoek naar de adjectivische buigingsalternantie bij neutra [The naked(-inflected) adjective. Quantitative and empirical study of the inflectional alternation of adjectives with neuter head nouns]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2014). Spurious effects in variational corpus linguistics: Identification and implications of confounding. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(4), 478–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, F. (2003). Morpho-syntactic agreement and index agreement in Dutch NPs. In T. Gaustad (Ed.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2002 (pp. 111–127). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Gijsel, S. (2007). A corpus linguistic, sociovariational analysis of lexical richness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
. (2013). Words and idioms. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 274–289). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dekalo, Volodymyr
2021. Exploring relative degrees of auxiliarization empirically in German modal constructions with wissen and verstehen . In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.