Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2014) ► pp.478–504

Spurious effects in variational corpus linguistics

Identification and implications of confounding

| Leuven University College
| KU Leuven
As repositories of spontaneously realized language, corpora generally have an uncontrolled and unbalanced structure where all variables operate simultaneously. Consequently, a variable’s real effect can be concealed when studied in isolation because of the exclusion of the impact of other potentially confounding variables. Analyzing a variational case study, the alternation between inflected and uninflected attributive adjectives in Dutch, it will be demonstrated how confounding variables alter the impact of explanatory variables on the response variable, resulting in spurious effects in the bivariate analyses. Multiple Correspondence Analysis will be used as a heuristic tool to unveil the association patterns between explanatory variables in the data matrix which induce the spurious effects. Based on these findings, we will argue for a thorough analysis of the database patterns to gain insight in the underlying associations between explanatory variables before modeling their real impact on the response variable in a multivariate model.
Keywords: confounding, Multiple Correspondence Analysis, variational linguistics, spurious effects
Published online: 25 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.4.02tum
References (61)
Agresti, A. 2007. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A. 2010. “Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology”. Corpora, 5 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A. & Järvikivi, J. 2007. “Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3 (2), 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 1992. “Congruentie in Nederlandse NP’s”. Spektator, 21 (2), 119–135.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14 (4), 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R.H. 2007. “Predicting the dative alternation”. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar
Butler, C.S. 1985. Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buttery, P. 2012. “Normalising frequency counts to account for ‘opportunity of use’ in learner corpora”. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Development and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2002. “Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 221, 75–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curley, S.P. & Browne, G.J. 2000. “Normative and descriptive analyses of Simpson’s paradox in decision making”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84 (2), 308–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, W. & Bosch, A. van den. 2005. Memory-Based Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. 2010. “Contrast coding in multiple regression analysis: Strengths, weaknesses, and utility of popular coding structures”. Journal of Data Science, 8 (1), 61–73.Google Scholar
De Schutter, G. 1997. “The noun phrase in Dutch”. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86 (3), 309–356.Google Scholar
Dunning, T. 1993. “Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence”. Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2005. “Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics”. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–190.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.) 2010. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2002. “A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research”. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M.J. 1984. Theory and Application of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. “From simple to multiple correspondence analysis”. In M.J. Greenacre & J. Blasius (Eds.), Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. London: Chapman & Hall, 41–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenland, S., Robins, J.M. & Pearl, J. 1999. “Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference”. Statistical Science, 14 (1), 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study Of Particle Placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Commentary”. In K. Allan & J. Robinson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 184–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (2nd edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Hilpert, M. 2010. “From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach”. English Language and Linguistics, 14 (3), 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S. & Speelman, D. 2007. “A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3 (2), 161–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de & Toorn, M.C. van den. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers — Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harrell, F.E. 2001. Regression Modeling Strategies, with Applications to Linear Models, Survival Analysis and Logistic Regression. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K. & Speelman, D. 2003. “A corpus-based analysis of word order variation: The order of verb arguments in the German Middle field”. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference. Lancaster: UCREL, 320–329.Google Scholar
Heylen, K., Tummers, J. & Geeraerts, D. 2008. “Methodological issues in corpus-based cognitive linguistics”. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 91–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honselaar, W. 1980. “On the semantics of adjective-noun combinations”. In A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 187–206.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Juola, P. 2006. “Authorship attribution”. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 1 (3), 233–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klooster, W. 2001. Grammatica van het Hedendaags Nederlands. Een Volledig Overzicht. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. “Contraction, deletion, and inherent variation in English copula”. Language, 45 (4), 725–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1972. “Some principles of linguistic methodology”. Language in Society, 1 (1), 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebrun, Y. & Schurmans-Swillen, G. 1966. “Verbogen tegenover onverbogen adjectieven in de taal van de Zuidnederlandse dagbladpers”. Taal en Tongval, 18 (1), 175–187.Google Scholar
Lipovetsky, S. & Conklin, W.M. 2006. “Data aggregation and Simpson’s paradox gauged by index numbers”. European Journal of Operational Research, 172 (1), 334–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nenadic, O. & Greenacre, M.J. 2007. “Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package”. Journal of Statistical Software, 20 (3). Available at: [URL] (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Nurmi, H. 1997. “Voting paradoxes and referenda”. Social Choice and Welfare, 15 (3), 333–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N. 2000. “Het corpus gesproken Nederlands”. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5 (3), 280–284.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: [URL] (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Rietveld, T. & Hout, R. van. 1993. Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. 2008. “Corpora and language teaching”. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (Volume 11). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 112–130.Google Scholar
Rooij, J. de. 1980a. “Ons bruin (e) paard I”. Taal en Tongval, 32 (1), 3–25.Google Scholar
. 1980b. “Ons bruin (e) paard II”. Taal en Tongval, 32 (2), 109–129.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P. & Sankoff, D. 1978. “Advances in variable rule methodology”. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, 57–69.Google Scholar
Schield, M. 1999. “Simpson’s paradox and Cornfield’s conditions”. ASA-JSM, Proceedings of the Section of Statistical Education , 106–111.
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S. & Geeraerts, D. 2003. “Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties”. Computers and the Humanities, 37 (3), 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2003. “Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English”. In G. Rohdenbrug & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 413–444.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus”. In M. Brda, M. Fuchs & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Expanding Cognitive Linguistic Horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2013. “The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts”. In K. Börjars, D. Denison & A. Scott (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Baayen, R.H. 2012. “Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice”. Language Variation and Change, 24 (2), 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tu, Y.-K., Gunnell, D. & Gilthorpe, M. 2008. “Simpson’s paradox, Lord’s paradox, and suppression effects are the same phenomenon: The reversal paradox”. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5 (2), 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J. 2005. Het Naakte Adjectief. Kwantitatief-empirisch Onderzoek naar de Adjectivische Buigingsalternantie bij Neutra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. 2005. “Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (2), 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. & Hughes, A. 1986. Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, B. 2010. “Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP”. Journal of Writing Research, 2 (2), 99–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Tummers, Jose, Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts
2015. Lectal constraining of lexical collocations. Constructions and Frames 7:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.