Article published in:
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 145–178

Visualizing distances in a set of near-synonyms

Rather, quite, fairly, and pretty

| Université Paris 8, Université Paris Ouest | Nanterre La Défense, UMR 7114 MoDyCo
I aim to uncover revealing aspects of the conceptual structure of four English moderators (rather, quite, fairly, and pretty) and shed new light on previous studies on degree modifiers. I develop an original methodology for handling and visualizing measures of significant attraction between lexical items. This methodology combines univariate and multivariate statistics. Collexeme analysis is used as input for hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, and multiple distinctive collexeme analysis is used as input for correspondence analysis. Visualizing collexemes with exploratory tools does more than depict proximities and distances between individuals and variables. It is also an accurate means to (a) unveil fine semantic differences in a set of near-synonymous constructions, (b) determine entrenchment continua, and (c) represent a significant part of the complex inventory of intensifying constructions.
Keywords: Cognitive Construction Grammar, collostructional analysis, correspondence analysis, degree modifiers, hierarchical cluster analysis, near-synonymy
Published online: 06 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.06des
References
Allerton, D.J
(1987) English intensifiers and their idiosyncrasies. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday (pp. 15–31). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B
(1991) Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In S. Johansson & A. Stenström (Eds.), English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide (pp. 127–149). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Athanasiadou, A
(2007) On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences , 29, 554–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benzécri, J-P
(1973)  L’analyse des données, 2. L’analyse des correspondances . Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Benzécri, J.-P
(1984)  Analyse des correspondances, exposé élémentaire (2nd ed.). Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R
(1998)  Corpus linguistics – Investigating language structure and use . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.L.M
(1972)  Degree words . The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Church, K.W., & Hanks, P
(1990) Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics , 16, 22–29.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A
(1986)  Lexical semantics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M
(1990–present)  The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 410 + million words . http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/cocaGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D
(2006) Ways of intending: Delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In St. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19–56). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2010)  Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., & Gries, St. Th
(2006) Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 23–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon , 3, 188–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, A., & Locke, P
(2006)  English grammar: A university course (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Edmonds, P., & Hirst, G
(2002) Near-synonymy and lexical choice. Computational Linguistics , 28, 105–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B.S, Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D
(2011)  Cluster Analysis (5th ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S
(2004) The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Firth, J
R (1957) A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In J.R. Firth (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis . Special volume of the Philological Society (pp. 1–32). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
(2000) Salience phenomena in the lexicon: A typology. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and Cognition (pp. 79–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P
(1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, E
(1989) Quite, rather. Cahiers de recherche en grammaire anglaise , 4, 4–61.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G
(2007) The verb slot in causative constructions. Finding the best fit. Constructions , SV1-3/2006. www​.elanguage​.net​/journals​/index​.php​/constructions​/article​/view​/18​/23Google Scholar
Glynn, D
(2010a) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics. An introduction to the field. In 
D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Quantitative approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Synonymy, lexical fields, and grammatical constructions. A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
(1995)  Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 7, 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006)  Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 201–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M.J
(2007)  Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th
(2007)  Coll.analysis 3.2. A program for R for Windows 2.x .
(2010)  Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 9, 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, St. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A
(2010). Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In J. Newman, & S. Rice (Eds.), Empirical and experimental methods in cognitive/functional research (pp. 73–90). Stanford, CA: CSLI. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006)  Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M
(2006) Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2, 243–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, G
(1995) Near-synonymy and the structure of lexical knowledge. In J. Klavans (Ed.), AAAI Symposium on Representation and Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge: Polysemy, Ambiguity, and Generativity (pp. 51–56). Cambridge (Mass.): AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P
(2013) The limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 32–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G
(2003). Amplifier collocations in the British National Corpus: Implications for English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly , 37, 467–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A
(2001). Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 6, 97–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1, 263–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991)  Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2. Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008)  Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Cognitive (construction) grammar. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 167–176.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G
(1997). Introducing corpus annotation. In R. Garside, G. Leech, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora (pp. 1–18). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lorenz, G
(2002) Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In 
I. Wischer, & G. Diewald (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 143–161). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Manning, C.D., & Schütze, H
(1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T., & Rissanen, M
(2002)  Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences , 24, 359–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C
(1994) Compromisers – a notional paradigm. Hermes , 13, 157–167.Google Scholar
(1997)  Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English . Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) It’s well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In J. M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English (pp. 147–160). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
(2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics , 12, 317–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T
(1996) Fishing for exactness. In Proceedings of the South-Central SAS Users Group Conference (pp. 188–200). Austin, TX.
Quine, W.V.O
(1951) Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review , 60, 20–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J
(1985)  A comprehensive grammar of the English language . London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2011)  R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna: Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J
(2007) 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
(2010) Does frequency in text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 101–133). Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M
(2008)  Almost certainly and most definitely: Degree modifiers and epistemic stance. Journal of Pragmatics , 40, 1521–1542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J
(1991)  Corpus, concordance, collocation . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8, 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stoffel, C
(1901). Intensives and downtoners: A study in English adverb s . Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Storjohann, P
(2009) Plesionymy: A case of synonymy or contrast? Journal of Pragmatics , 41, 2140–2158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C
(2008) The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 335–359). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ward, J.H
(1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 58, 236–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, D
(2008) On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 4, 253–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 27 other publications

No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. xi ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. xiii ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. xv ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 133 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 167 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 197 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 219 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 271 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 307 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 367 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 451 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 465 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 485 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157], ► pp. 507 ff. Crossref logo
BERG, THOMAS
2019. Adjective phrases with doubly modified heads: how lexical information influences word order and constituent structure. English Language and Linguistics 23:2 ► pp. 341 ff. Crossref logo
Desagulier, Guillaume
2017.  In Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ], ► pp. 197 ff. Crossref logo
Desagulier, Guillaume
2017.  In Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ], ► pp. 239 ff. Crossref logo
Deshors, Sandra C.
2017. Zooming in on Verbs in the Progressive: A Collostructional and Correspondence Analysis Approach. Journal of English Linguistics 45:3 ► pp. 260 ff. Crossref logo
Lederer, Jenny
2016. Finding source domain triggers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21:4 ► pp. 527 ff. Crossref logo
Liesenfeld, Andreas, Meichun Liu & Chu-Ren Huang
2022. Profiling the Chinese causative construction with rang (讓), shi (使) and ling (令) using frame semantic features. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo
Parisse, Christophe & Caroline Rossi
2017.  In Lexical Polycategoriality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 182], ► pp. 413 ff. Crossref logo
Ranger, Graham
2019. Review: Desagulier. 2017. Corpus Linguistics and Statistics with R: Introduction to Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Corpora 14:2 ► pp. 271 ff. Crossref logo
Umutcan Ay, H., S. Nazlı Günesen & Tolga Kaya
2021.  In Intelligent and Fuzzy Techniques: Smart and Innovative Solutions [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1197], ► pp. 850 ff. Crossref logo
Wiliński, Jarosław
2017. On the Brink of-Noun vs. On the Verge of-Noun: a Distinctive-Collexeme Analysis. Research in Language 15:4 ► pp. 425 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 2022. 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.