Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus LinguisticsVol. 28:1 (2023) ► pp.60–90
The rise of colligations
English can’t stand and German nicht ausstehen können
This article examines the lexically parallel English and German constructions can’t stand somebody/something and jemanden/etwas nicht ausstehen können “not tolerate (someone or something)”, from synchronic, diachronic, and quantitative perspectives. Syntactic and semantic restrictions suggest that the usage of stand and ausstehen in the relevant sense is older than other semantically similar verbs (e.g. English tolerate, German leiden), while quantitative evidence from corpora shows that the can’t stand and nicht ausstehen können constructions are both colligationally stronger than lexical competitors. Evidence from the history of stand indicates that the lexeme stand in the Germanic and other Indo-European languages has a long history of being employed in the relevant sense. The restrictions on usage and the colligational strength of the respective English and German constructions are thus argued to result from the antiquity of the construction and functional competition from other lexemes.
Keywords: collostructional analysis, historical linguistics, Indo-European linguistics, Germanic languages, syntactic productivity
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Synchronically and diachronically conditioned colligations
- 2.1Synchronic colligational restrictions
- 2.2The diachronic conditioning of colligations
- 2.2.1Lexical renewal and competition induce linguistic specialization via colligation
- 2.2.2Diachronically persistent parameters motivate blocking effects and colligations
- 3.Colligations, restrictions, and the linguistic age of E. stand and G. ausstehen
- 4.Colligations in English can’t stand and German nicht ausstehen können
- 4.1 English: (can’t) stand someone/something (out)
- 4.2German: From (ir)stan(tan) to nicht ausstehen können
- 4.3Summary of attested diachronic developments
- 5.Quantitative analysis of colligations, cohesion, and linguistic age
- 5.1Collostructional analysis and constructional productivity
- 5.2Colligational strength in the can not verbinf x
0
objectacc
construction: Data collection and quantitative analysis
- 5.2.1English
- 5.2.2German
- 6.Conclusion
- Notes
- The following abbreviations are employed in this article
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References (51)
Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V. (2011).
Why Brush Your Teeth is better than Teeth – Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development,
7
(2), 107–129. 
Baayen, R. H. (1989). A Corpus-Based Approach to Morphological Productivity: Statistical Analysis and Psycholinguistic Interpretation. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica.
(1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Kluwer.
Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. (2020). Deutsches Textarchiv: Grundlage für ein Refernzkorpus der neuhochdeutschen Sprache [German Text Archive: Foundation for a Reference Corpus of the New High German Language]. [URL]
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and Memory. Forum Linguisticum
1
(1), 1–14.
Bosworth, J., & Toller, T. N. (1921). An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford University Press. [URL]
Bozzone, C. (2014). Constructions: A New Approach to Formularity, Discourse, and Syntax in Homer [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles]. eScholarship University of California. [URL]
(Forthcoming). Homeric constructions, their productivity, and the development of Epic Greek. In L. van Beek (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference “Language Change in Epic Greek and other Oral Traditions”. Brill.
Bybee, J. (2006). Form usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language
82
(4), 711–733.
(2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press.
(2010). Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics,
37
(4), 575–596.
Davies, M. (2004). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Retrieved July 28, 2020 from [URL]
(2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 600 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved October 21, 2019 from [URL]
(2010–). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. Retrieved July 28, 2020 from [URL]
(2015). Handsard Corpus. Part of the SAMUELS project. Retrieved July 28, 2020 from [URL]
(2017). Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project. Retrieved July 28, 2020 from [URL]
Cameron, A., Amos, A. C., dePaolo, A., Liuzza, R., & Momma, H. (2018). The Dictionary of Old English: A–I. Dictionary of Old English Project. [URL]
dePaolo, A., Wilkin, J. P., & Xiang, X. (2009). Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. [URL]
Donnhauser, K., Gippert, J., & Lühr, R. (2015). Referenzkorpus Altdeutsch. [URL]
Ellis, N. (2006). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics
27
(1), 1–24.
Evert, S. (2004). The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations [Doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart]. [URL]
Firth, R. (1964). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. Th. (2009). Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Routledge.
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
8
(2), 209–43.
Grimm, J. (1854–1961). Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm [German Dictionary by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm]. Hirzel. [URL]
Hackstein, O. (2012a). When words coalesce: Chunking and morphophonemic extension. In H. Craig Melchert (Ed.), The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010 (pp. 87–104). Reichert.
(2012b). Das Gedächtnis der Sprache. Sprachwandel und Gegenwart – welche Bedeutung besitzt die sprachliche Vergangenheit für die Gegenwart? [The Memory of language. Language change and the present day – what significance does the linguistic past have for the present?] Akademie Aktuell. Zeitschrift der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 01/2012, 12–17. [URL]
Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. (pp. 3–28). John Benjamins.
Hirzel. (2006–). Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. [URL]
Holmberg, A. (2015). Verb second. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax: Theory and Analysis. de Gruyter.
Kennison, S. (2001). Limitations on the use of verb information during sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
8
1, 132–138.
Kupietz, M. (Ed.). (2019). Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus – DeReKo. Retrieved October 21, 2019 from [URL]
Kuryłowicz, J. (1945). Le nature des procès dits analogiques [The nature of so-called analogical processes]. Acta Linguistica,
5
1, 15–37.
Labov, W. (1989). The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change,
1
1, 85–97.
(2001). Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Blackwell.
Lehecka, T. (2015). Collocation and colligation. In J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. [URL].
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do Linguistics with R. John Benjamins.
Lewis, R. E. (Ed.) (1952–2001). Middle English Dictionary. University of Michigan Press, 1952–2001. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Frances McSparran, et al. (Eds.). University of Michigan Library, 2000–2018. Available online at [URL].
Meillet, A. (1937). Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes [Introduction to the Comparative Study of the Indo-European Languages] (8th ed.). Hachette.
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., Hornik, K., Gerber, F., & Friendly, M. (2017). vcd: Visualizing Categorical Data (Version 1.4-5) [Computer software]. [URL]
Oxford University Press. (1884–). The Oxford English Dictionary Online. [URL]
Pinault, G.-J. (2015). The formation of Buddhist languages, as exemplified by the Tocharian evidence. In M. Malzahn, M. Peyrot, H. Fellner, & T.-S. Illés (Eds.), Tocharian Texts in Context, International Conference on Tocharian Manuscripts and Silk Road Culture, Vienna, June 25–29th, 2013 (pp. 159–185). Hempen.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Sinclair, J. (1998). The lexical item. In E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive Lexical Semantics (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. de Gruyter.
Walz, M. (1892). Garel von dem blüenden Tal: Ein höfischer Roman aus dem Artussagenkreis von dem Pleier [Garel of the Flowering Valley: A Courtly Novel from the Arthurian Cycle by Der Pleier]. Wagner’sche Universitäts-Buchhandlung.
Wegera, K.-P., & Klein, T. (2016). Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdetusch. [URL]
Wiechmann, D. (2008). On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory
4
(2), 253–90.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
Zeldes, A. (2012). Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. de Gruyter.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Hackstein, Olav
2024. Iceberg Phenomena and Synchronic Rules. In The Method Works, ► pp. 143 ff. 
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 september 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.