Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Benjamins Current Topics 119] 2021
► pp. 7–28

Quantitative perspectives in Cognitive Linguistics

| UiT The Arctic University of Norway
As a usage-based approach to the study of language, cognitive linguistics is theoretically well poised to apply quantitative methods to the analysis of corpus and experimental data. In this article, I review the historical circumstances that led to the quantitative turn in cognitive linguistics and give an overview of statistical models used by cognitive linguists, including chi-square test, Fisher test, Binomial test, t-test, ANOVA, correlation, regression, classification and regression trees, naïve discriminative learning, cluster analysis, multi-dimensional scaling, and correspondence analysis. I stress the essential role of introspection in the design and interpretation of linguistic studies, and assess the pros and cons of the quantitative turn. I also make a case for open access science and appropriate archiving of linguistic data.
Keywords: quantitative methods, statistical models, corpus data, experimental data, usage-based approach
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What brought about the quantitative turn?
    • 2.1A usage-based model of language is data-friendly
    • 2.2Advent of electronic language resources
    • 2.3Advent of analytical tools
  • 3.What does the quantitative turn bring us?
    • 3.1Quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics
      • 3.1.1Is A different from B? Chi-square test, Fisher test, Binomial test, t-test, ANOVA
      • 3.1.2What factors are associated with A? Correlation, regression, mixed effects regression, classification and regression trees, naïve discriminative learning
      • 3.1.3What is the structure of relationships among a group of items? Cluster analysis, multi-dimensional scaling, correspondence analysis
    • 3.2Role of introspection
  • 4.Where does the quantitative turn lead us?
    • 4.1Opportunities
    • 4.2Dangers
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.119.02jan
References

References

Ambridge, B. & Goldberg, A. E.
(2008) The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 357–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 295–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipovic Durdjevic, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M.
(2011) An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Makarova, A., & Nesset, T.
(2013) Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics, 37(3), 253–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, D., & Kapatsinski, V.
(2017) A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 213–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.
(1985) Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carden, G., & Dieterich, T. G.
(1980) Introspection, observation and experiment: An example where experiment pays off. Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 583–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clancy, S. J.
(2006) The topology of Slavic case: Semantic maps and multidimensional scaling. Glossos, 7, 1–28. [URL]
Cowart, W.
(1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Poole, K. T.
(2008) Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2010) Naive v. expert competence: An empirical study of speaker intuitions. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A.
(2009) The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 571–597. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, N.
(1990) Word order as a reflection of alternate conceptual construals in French and Spanish: Similarities and divergences in adjective position. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 349–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2008) Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 465–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, H. M., & Janda, L. A.
(2014) Grammatical profiles and aspect in Old Church Slavonic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 112(2), 231–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Falck, M. J., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 251–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R.
(1992) Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman! London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1990) Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2010) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2009) What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 491–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. In N. B. Gisborne & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 15–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 505–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günter, F.
(2014) Form, meaning and cognition: Language- and speaker-specific variation in linguistic and non-linguistic forms of interaction with spatial scenes. PhD Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(2009) What is the role of semantic maps in cognitive linguistics? In P. Stalmaszczyk & W. Oleksy (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to language and linguistic data: Studies in honor of Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (pp. 105–124). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics . In L. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The quantitative turn. The Essential Reader (pp. 1–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The quantitative turn. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 498–514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., 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, 29–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Solovyev, V. D.
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
(2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.
(2004) On change in Language and change in language. Language, 80, 381–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V.
(2013) Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language, 89, 110–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kelly, K.
(2010) What technology wants. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A.
(2005) Language is never, ever, ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 263–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I., & Żygis, M.
(2012) Phonetic and lexical gradience in Polish prefixed words. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 317–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küchenhoff, H., & Schmid, H. J.
(2015) Reply to “More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff” by S. T. Gries. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 537–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R., Roberts, S. G., & Dediu, D.
(2015) Correlational studies in typological and historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 221–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J.
(2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T., & Janda, L. A.
(2010) Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 699–725. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Roberts, S., & Winters, J.
(2013) Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PLOSone, 8(8), e70902. DOI logoGoogle 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, 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2011a) Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 107–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In M. Callies, W. R. Keller, & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 296–309). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Tutz, G., & Malley, J.
(2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14, 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2012) The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed jyoti case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 91–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2012) Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 749–792. DOI logoGoogle Scholar