Part of
Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymyEdited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 279–303
Edited by Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson
[Human Cognitive Processing 43] 2014
► pp. 279–303
A diachronic corpus-based multivariate analysis of “I think that” vs. “I think zero”
This corpus-driven study seeks to explain the choice between the zero complement and the that complement constructions, when occurring with the mental state predicate think. Previous studies have identified a range of factors that are argued to explain the alternation patterns. Such studies have also proposed that there is a diachronic drift towards zero complementation. Based on a sample of 9,720 think tokens, from both spoken and written corpora, from between 1560–2012, we test the hypothesis of diachronic change and the effect of eleven proposed factors on the constructional alternation. Using logistic regression, we demonstrate that, contrary to previous studies, there is in fact a diachronic decrease in zero complementation. Moreover, the study also demonstrates the importance of understanding the interaction of the various factors that explain the near-synonymous relation, including, especially, between the spoken and written modes.
References (35)
Aijmer, K. (1997). I think – an English modal particle. In T. Swan, & O. Jansen Westvik (Eds.),
Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives
(pp. 1–47). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 
ANC = American National Corpus (2002). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Bolinger, D. (1972).
That’s that
. (Janua linguarum. Series Minor, 155). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.),
Cognitive foundations of interpretation
(pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Brinton, L.J., & Traugott, E.C. (2005).
Lexicalization and language change. (Research Surveys in Linguistics.)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BROWN = Francis, W.N., & Kucera, H. (1979).
The Brown Corpus
. Department of Linguistics, Brown University.
Bybee, J. (2002). Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.),
The new psychology of language
Vol. II (pp. 145–167). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
CEECS I & II = Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler (CEECS) [URL]>.
CEMET = Corpus of Early Modern English texts (Extended version). See De Smet (2005).
CLMETEV = Corpus of Late Modern English texts (Extended version). See De Smet (2005).
COCA = Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 1990–present. Retrieved from [URL].
De Smet, H. (2005). A Corpus of Late Modern English.
ICAME Journal
, 29, 69–82.
Divjak, D. (2010).
Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy
. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Elsness, J. (1984).
That or zero: A look at the choice of the object clause connective in a corpus of American English.
English Studies
, 65, 519–533.
Finnegan, E., & Biber, D. (1995).
That and zero complementizers in Late Modern English: Exploring Archer from 1650–1990. In B. Aarts, & C. Meyer (Eds.),
The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description
(pp. 241–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glynn, D. (2010). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn, & K. Fischer (Eds.),
Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches
(pp. 239–270). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, S. Th. (2013).
Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction
.
2nd revised edition
. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grondelaers S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven (Eds.),
Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems
(pp. 153–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grondelaers, St., Geeraerts, D., & Speelman, D. (2007). A case for cognitive corpus linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. Spivey (Eds.),
Methods in Cognitive Linguistics
(pp. 149–169). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Heylen, K. (2005). A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (Eds.),
Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives
(pp. 241–264). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kaltenböck, G. (2004).
That or no that – that is the question: On subordinator suppression in extraposed subject clauses.
Vienna English Working Papers
, 13, 49–68.
Kearns, K. (2007a). Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer.
English Language and Linguistics
, 11, 475–505.
. (2007b). Regional variation in the syntactic distribution of null finite complementizer.
Language Variation and Change
, 19, 295–336.
LAMPETER = Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts (1641–1732). Retrieved from [URL].
Palander-Collin, M. (1999).
Grammaticalization and social embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English
. Helsinki: Tome LV.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972).
A grammar of contemporary English
. London: Longman.
Rissanen, M. (1991). On the history of that/zero as clause object links in English. In K. Aijmer, & B. Altenberg (Eds.),
English corpus linguistics: Studies in honor of Jan Svartvik
(pp. 272–289). London & New York: Longman.
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English.
Cognitive Linguistics
, 7, 149–182.
Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2010). Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch ‘doen’ and ‘laten’. In T. Sanders, & E. Sweetser (Eds.),
Causal categories in discourse and cognition
(pp. 173–204). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tagliamonte, S., & Smith, J. (2005). No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects.
English Language and Linguistics
, 9, 289–309.
Thompson, S.A., & Mulac, A. (1991). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.),
Approaches to grammaticalization
(pp. 313–339). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
TIME = Davies, M. (2007).
TIME Magazine Corpus (1920s–2000s). Retrieved from [URL].
Torres Cacoullos, R. & Walker, J.A. (2009). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that
.
Linguistics
, 47, 1–43.
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B. (2002).
Regularity in semantic change
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E.C., & Konig, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.),
Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 1. Focus on theoretical and
methodological issues
(pp. 189–218). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Gong, Liwei & Satoshi Uehara
2024. Encoding of nominal predication constructions: a typological investigation in verb-initial languages. Linguistic Typology 28:2 ► pp. 291 ff. 
GRIES, STEFAN T.
2023. New Technologies and Advances in Statistical Analysis in Recent Decades. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 561 ff.
Shank, Christopher & Koen Plevoets
2018. Investigating the impact of structural factors upon that/zero complementizer alternation patterns in verbs of cognition: a diachronic corpus-based multifactorial analysis. Research in Corpus Linguistics ► pp. 83 ff.
Davidse, Kristin, Simon De Wolf & An Van linden
2015. The development of the modal and discourse marker uses of (there/it is/I have)no doubt. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16:1 ► pp. 25 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 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.