Cover not available
Article published In:
English World-Wide
Vol. 40:1 (2019) ► pp.25–53

Complementing corpus analysis with web-based experimentation in research on World Englishes

| University of Freiburg
Usage-based research in linguistics has to a large extent relied on corpus data. However, a feature’s “failure to appear in even a very large corpus (such as the Web) is not evidence for ungrammaticality, nor is appearance evidence for grammaticality” (Schütze and Sprouse 2013: 29). It is therefore advisable to complement corpus-based analyses with experimental data, so as to (ideally) obtain converging evidence. This paper reviews reasons for combining corpus linguistic with psycholinguistic experimental methods, and demonstrates how research on varieties of English can profit from experimentation. For a study of conversion in Asian Englishes, the maze task (Forster, Guerrera, and Elliot 2009; Forster 2010) was implemented with a web-based, open-source software. The results of the experiment dovetail with a previous analysis of the Corpus of Global Web-based English (Davies 2013). These results should encourage researchers not to base findings exclusively on corpus evidence, but corroborate them by means of experimental data.
Keywords: converging evidence, web-based experimentation, Asian Englishes, conversion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus analysis versus psycholinguistic experimentation
  • 3.Analysis
  • 4.Gathering converging evidence for V>N conversion in Asian Englishes
    • 4.1V>N conversion in GloWbE
      • 4.1.1V>N conversion in Asian varieties of English
      • 4.1.2Methods
      • 4.1.3Results
    • 4.2Complementing corpus data with web-based experimental data
      • 4.2.1Method
      • 4.2.2Materials
      • 4.2.3Procedure
      • 4.2.4Participants
      • 4.2.5Results
      • 4.2.6Discussion
  • 5.The benefits of combining corpus and experimental data
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00021.hor
References (54)
Sources
Davies, Mark. 2013. “Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 Billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries” <[URL]>.
References
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel. 2010. “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology”. Corpora 51: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, and Juhani Järvikivi. 2007. “Every Method Counts: Combining Corpus-Based and Experimental Evidence in the Study of Synonymy”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 31: 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Petar Milin. 2010. “Analyzing Reaction Times”. International Journal of Psychological Research 31: 12–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, Zhiming. 2010a. “A Usage-Based Approach to Substratum Transfer: The Case of four Unproductive Features in Singapore English”. Language 861: 792–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “ Must in Singapore English”. Lingua 1201: 1727–1737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birnbaum, Michael H. 2004. “Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet”. Annual Review of Psychology 551: 803–832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K., and Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. “Learning what not to Say. The Role of Statistical Preemption and Categorization in a-Adjective Production”. Language 871: 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Silke, and Evan Kidd. 2011. “Relative Clause Acquisition and Representation: Evidence from Spontaneous Speech, Sentence Repetition, and Comprehension”. In Doris Schönefeld, ed. Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 273–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation”. In Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, eds. Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: De Gruyter, 75–96.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Marilyn Ford. 2010. “Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English”. Language 861: 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Callies, Marcus. 2016. “Towards a Process-Oriented Approach to Comparing EFL and ESL Varieties. A Corpus-Study of Lexical Innovations”. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 21: 229–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derix, Johanna, Olga Iljina, Andreas Schulze-Bonhage, Ad Aertsen, and Tonio Ball. 2012. “‘Doctor’ or ‘Darling’? Decoding the Communication Partner from ECoG of the Anterior Temporal Lobe during Non-Experimental, Real-Life Social Interaction”. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6: 251.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2008. “On (In)frequency and (Un)acceptability”. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ed. Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools, and Applications – State of the Art. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 213–233.Google Scholar
Don, Jan, Mieke Trommelen, and Wim Zonneveld. 2000. “Conversion and Category Indeterminacy”. In Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, eds. Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Vol. 11. Berlin: De Gruyter, 943–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I. “The Word Maze Game”. <[URL]> (accessed April 16, 2015).
2010. “Using a Maze Task to Track Lexical and Sentence Processing”. The Mental Lexicon 51: 347–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I., Christine Guerrera, and Lisa Elliot. 2009. “The Maze Task: Measuring Forced Incremental Sentence Processing Time”. Behavior Research Methods 411: 163–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. “Corpora and Experimental Methods: A State-of-the-Art Review”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 51: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2002. “Evidence in Linguistics: Three Approaches to Genitives in English”. In Ruth M. Brend, William J. Sullivan, and Arle R. Lommel, eds. LACUS Forum XXVIII: What Constitutes Evidence in Linguistics? Fullerton: Linguistic Society of Canada and the United States, 17–31.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, and Doris Schönefeld. 2005. “Converging Evidence. Bringing Together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions”. Cognitive Linguistics 161: 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2017. “Frequencies in Diachronic Corpora and Knowledge of Language”. In Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger, eds. The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horch, Clemens. 2015. QualityCrowd2. <[URL]> (accessed June 30, 2015).
Horch, Stephanie. 2016. “Conversion in Asian Englishes. A Usage-Based Account of the Emergence of New Local Norms”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keimel, Christian, Julian Habigt, Clemens Horch, and Klaus Diepold. 2012. “QualityCrowd – A Framework for Crowd-Based Quality Evaluation”. In Marek Domański, Tomasz Grajek, Damian Karwowski, and Ryszard Stasiński, eds. Proceedings, 2012 Picture Coding Symposium. Piscataway: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 245–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kosinski, Robert J. 2013. “A Literature Review on Reaction Time”. <[URL]> (accessed May 7, 2015).
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. “Contractions of English Semi-Modals: The Emancipating Effect of Frequency”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “From Priming and Processing to Frequency Effects and Grammaticalization? Contracted Semi-Modals in Present-Day English”. In Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, and Simone E. Pfenninger, eds. The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Stephen, and Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meunier, Fanny, and Damien Littré. 2013. “Tracking Learners’ Progress. Adopting a Dual ‘Corpus cum Experimental Data’ Approach”. The Modern Language Journal 971: 61–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley. 1980. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato, and Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. “Collostructional Nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-Construction Associations in the International Corpus of English”. English World-Wide 301: 27–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. 2004. “Introduction”. World Englishes 231: 225–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavesi, Maria. 1998. “‘Same Word, Same Idea’: Conversion as a Word Formation Process”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 361: 213–231.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C., and Douglas M. Bates. 2000. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Po-Ching, Yip, and Don Rimmington. 2004. Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger, Anjali Thapar, Pablo Gomez, and Gail McKoon. 2004. “A Diffusion Model Analysis of the Effects of Aging in the Lexical-Decision Task”. Psychology and Aging 191: 278–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reips, Ulf-Dietrich. 2002. “Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting”. Experimental Psychology 491: 243–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. “The Dynamics of New Englishes: From Identity Construction to Dialect Birth”. Language 791: 233–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “New Reflections on the Evolutionary Dynamics of World Englishes”. World Englishes 331: 9–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris, ed. 2011a. Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Introduction: On Evidence and the Convergence of Evidence in Linguistic Research”. In Doris Schönefeld, ed. Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T., and Jon Sprouse. 2013. “Judgment Data”. In Robert J. Podesva, and Devyani Sharma, eds. Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27–50.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Jason Grafmiller, Benedikt Heller, and Melanie Röthlisberger. 2016. “Around the World in Three Alternations: Modelling Syntactic Variation in Varieties of English”. English World-Wide 371: 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallentin, Mikkel. 2009. “Putative Sex Differences in Verbal Abilities and Language Cortex. A Critical Review”. Brain and Language 1081: 175–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Jessica. 1987. “Non-Native Varieties of English: A Special Case of Language Acquisition”. English World-Wide 81: 161–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change”. Diachronica 301: 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2009. “Converging Evidence from Corpus and Experimental Data to Capture Idiomaticity”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 51: 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Engel, Alexandra, Jason Grafmiller, Laura Rosseel & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2022. Assessing the complexity of lectal competence: the register-specificity of the dative alternation aftergive. Cognitive Linguistics 33:4 ► pp. 727 ff. DOI logo
ROMASANTA, RAQUEL P.
2022. Negation as a predictor of clausal complement choice in World Englishes. English Language and Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Lorenz, David & David Tizón-Couto
2020. Chapter 4. Not just frequency, not just modality. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Hundt, Marianne
2019. Corpus-Based Approaches to World Englishes. In The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes, ► pp. 506 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. 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.