Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Susan Hunston and Florent Perek
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3] 2019
► pp. 385–412

15 years of collostructions

Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures)

 | University of California, Santa Barbara | Justus Liebig University Giessen
This paper discusses a variety of potential shortcomings of most of the most widely-used association measures as used in collocation research and collostructional analyses. To address these shortcomings, I then discuss a research program called tupleization, an approach that does away with the usual kinds of information conflation by keeping relevant corpus-linguistic dimensions of information – e.g. frequency, association/contingency, dispersion, entropy, etc. – separate and analyzing them in a multidimensional way; I conclude with pointers towards how these dimensions could, if deemed absolutely necessary, be conflated for the simplest kinds of of rankings as well as strategies for future research.
Keywords: collostructional analysis, tupleization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Problems of association measures and towards the solution of tupleization
    • 2.1AMs and the conflation of frequency and effect size of association/contingency
    • 2.2AMs and type frequencies/distributions
    • 2.3Directionality of AMs
    • 2.4Underdispersion of co-occurrence data
    • 2.5Against conflation, towards tupleization
  • 3.Case studies of tupleization
    • 3.1A collexeme analysis of the ditransitive
      • 3.1.1A “traditional” collexeme analysis: 1-tuples
      • 3.1.2Separating frequency and association/contingency: 2-tuples
      • 3.1.3Adding dispersion to frequency and association: 3-tuples
      • 3.1.4Distinguishing directions of association: 4-tuples
    • 3.2A collexeme analysis of the imperative
    • 3.3A distinctive-collexeme analysis of transitive phrasal verbs
    • 3.4A brief discussion of type-token distributions and entropies
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
    • 4.1Interim summary
      • 4.1.1What does G2 (or pFYE) actually do?
      • 4.1.2What if one really needs a one-dimensional ranking?
    • 4.2Where to go from here
  • References
Published online: 27 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri
References (46)
References
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 19 (9), 814–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development, 21 (2), 174–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118 (3), 438–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, S., & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In J. Yoon & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar (pp. 165–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15 1, 17–29.Google Scholar
Davies, M. & Gardner, D. (2010). A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English: Word sketches, collocates and thematic lists. London & New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. C. (2016). Multidimensional Perspectives on Interlanguage: Exploring May and Can Across Learner Corpora . Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2011). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–55. Reprinted in F. R. Palmer (Ed.), (1968). Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35 (3), 305–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (4), 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13 (4). 403–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). 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
(2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (3), 505–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (forthcoming). Analyzing dispersion. In M. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Berlin & New York, NY: Springer.
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (4), 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3 1, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyselinck, E. (2018). The Role of Expressivity and Productivity in (Re)Shaping the Constructional Network (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ghent, Ghent.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1970). Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2012a). Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012b). Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. Closs Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In B. Love, K. McRae & V. Sloutsky (Eds). Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 1061–1066). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Lester, N. A. (2017). The Syntactic Bits of Nouns: How Prior Syntactic Distributions Affect Comprehension, Production, and Acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
Lester, N. A. & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2016). Syntactic flexibility in the noun: Evidence from picture naming. Paper presented at the CogSci 2016 conference, Philadelphia, USA.
Lester, N. A., Feldman, L. B., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2017). You can take a noun out of syntax …: Syntactic similarity effects in lexical priming. Paper presented at the CogSci 2017 conference, London, UK.
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, J. H. (1991). Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37 (1), 145–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linzen, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science, 40 (6), 1382–1411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthys, J. (2014). Collostructional Transfer in the Dative Alternation: An Experimental Study on the Transfer of the Dative Constructions’ Verb Biases by Flemish EFL Learners (Unpublished masters dissertation). University of Ghent, Ghent.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language, 60 (1), 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., Elman, J., & Dick, F. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57 (3), 348–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. (2010). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J. & Ungerer, F. (2011). Cognitive linguistics. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 611–624). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2). 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2006). Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, D. (2008). On the computation of collostruction strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4 (2), 253–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (36)

Cited by 36 other publications

De Los Reyes, Nicole C. & Ute Römer-Barron
2024. A collostructional approach to Japanese noun-modifying clause construction use and acquisition: a learner corpus study. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2024. Transfer of collostructions: the case of causative constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th., Brian G. Slocum & Kevin Tobia
2024. Corpus-linguistic approaches to lexical statutory meaning: Extensionalist vs. intensionalist approaches. Applied Corpus Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 100079 ff. DOI logo
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
2024. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics 60:3 ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo
Hoang, Hien & Peter Crosthwaite
2024. A comparative analysis of multiword units in the reading and listening input of English textbooks. System 121 ► pp. 103224 ff. DOI logo
Liao, Shengyu, Stefan Th. Gries & Stefanie Wulff
2024. Transfer five ways: applications of multiple distinctive collexeme analysis to the dative alternation in Mandarin Chinese. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Newman, John
2024. Revisiting N waiting to happen: word, construction, and corpus choices in a collostructional analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Tang, Xuri & Huifang Ye
2024. Metaphorical language change is Self-Organized Criticality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana
2024. Idiosyncratic entrenchment: tracing change in constructional schematicity with nested random effects. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Zhang, Zhuo, Meichun Liu & Jinmeng Dou
2024. Semantic Preferences of Biran and Yiding: A Distinctive Collexeme Analysis of Chinese Near-Synonymous Constructions of “Mod + Verb”. In Chinese Lexical Semantics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 14514], ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
GRIES, STEFAN T.
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 561 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan T.
2023. Collostructional Methods. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Ming
2023. Otherness and suspiciousness: a comparative study of public opinions between the Confucius Institute and Goethe-Institut in developing countries. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo
Pedersen, Johan
2023. Chapter 8. Danish verb prefixes and the schematizing transitive prefix construction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 212 ff. DOI logo
Van Hoey, Thomas
2023. ABB, a salient prototype of collocate–ideophone constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Cognitive Linguistics 0:0 DOI logo
Wyroślak, Piotr
2023. Accusative-instrumental alternation in Polish. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 68:1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Dargnat, Mathilde
2022. Mais enfin  : construction et association. Langages N° 225:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Le Foll, Elen
2022. “I’m putting some salt in my sandwich”.. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Jiaojiao & Jiangping Zhou
2022. A Corpus-Based Study of Semantic Categorizations of Attracted Adjectives to the it BE ADJ clause Construction. Sage Open 12:2 DOI logo
Wang, Zhong, Weiwei Fan & Alex Chengyu Fang
2022. Lexical Input in the Grammatical Expression of Stance: A Collexeme Analysis of the INTRODUCTORY IT PATTERN. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Bosque, Ignacio
2021. La gramática de construcciones. Una mirada externa. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2021. A new approach to (key) keywords analysis: Using frequency, and now also dispersion. Research in Corpus Linguistics 9:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. What do (most of) our dispersion measures measure (most)? Dispersion?. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:2 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. Multi-word units (and tokenization more generally): a multi-dimensional and largely information-theoretic approach. Lexis :19 DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. What do (some of) our association measures measure (most)? Association?. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Shadrova, Anna, Pia Linscheid, Julia Lukassek, Anke Lüdeling & Sarah Schneider
2021. A Challenge for Contrastive L1/L2 Corpus Studies: Large Inter- and Intra-Individual Variation Across Morphological, but Not Global Syntactic Categories in Task-Based Corpus Data of a Homogeneous L1 German Group. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Tang, Xuri
2021. How metaphoremes emerge. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19:1 ► pp. 80 ff. DOI logo
Thompson, Arthur Lewis, Thomas Van Hoey & Youngah Do
2021. Articulatory features of phonemes pattern to iconic meanings: evidence from cross-linguistic ideophones. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 563 ff. DOI logo
Gries, Stefan Th. & Philip Durrant
2020. Analyzing Co-occurrence Data. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Kulchytskyy, Ihor
2020. Text normalization during pre-corpus preparation: experience of application. Vìsnik Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu "Lʹvìvsʹka polìtehnìka". Serìâ Ìnformacìjnì sistemi ta merežì :7 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Lampert, Gunther
2020. Chapter 5. How and why seem became an evidential. In Re-Assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2020. Contingency learning and perfective morpheme productivity in L2 Italian: A study on lexeme–morpheme associations with ΔP. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:3 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2022. Intra-language: the study of L2 morpheme productivity as within-item variance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:4 ► pp. 1143 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2022. Intra-language: the study of L2 morpheme productivity as within-item variance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:4 ► pp. 1143 ff. DOI logo
Wiesinger, Evelyn
2020. ¿Esto se echa para atrás? An approach to verb-particle constructions in European Spanish based on a corpus study of [V para atrás]. Romanica Olomucensia 32:1 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Frequency, Dispersion, Association, and Keyness [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 115], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 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.