Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.204–257

Cuanto(s) más datos, (tanto) mejor

A corpus-based study of the Spanish comparative correlative construction

| Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt,
The Spanish comparative correlative (CC) construction (Cuanto más leo, (tanto) más entiendo) has a complex syntactic structure and complex semantics. The syntactic relationship between its two subclauses has been subject to much debate. This study, the first large-scale (> 3,000 tokens) corpus investigation, explores various aspects and provides evidence for hypotaxis. However, statistical analysis of the data also revealed ‘under-the-surface’ parataxis. I therefore argue that the construction cannot be classified as either hypotactic or paratactic, but as hypotactic and paratactic to certain degrees, also compared with its counterparts in English and Slovak. I argue that the ‘competition’ between hypotactic and paratactic encoding can be attributed to the principle of iconicity, that is, the “(partial) motivation of a construction’s form by its meaning” (Hoffmann, 2019, p. 12). Finally, I discuss various formal aspects of the Spanish CC construction that have so far gone unnoticed, providing new evidence in the form of corpus data.
Keywords: comparative correlative, Spanish, corpus data, parataxis, hypotaxis, principle of iconicity, covarying-collexeme analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Clause-initial elements cuanto and tanto
      • 3.1.1Cuanto Agreement
      • 3.1.2Presence Tanto C2
    • 3.2Lexical Filler
    • 3.3Constituent order: Comparative Element Position C1 & C2
    • 3.4Cross-clausal associations: Filler Types and Deletion
      • 3.4.1Filler Type
      • 3.4.2Lexical Filler: Filler Type interaction
      • 3.4.3Deletion
    • 3.5Verb morphology: Mood and Tense
      • 3.5.1Mood
      • 3.5.2Tense
  • 4.Discussion of results
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00157.hor
References (71)
References
Abeillé, A., & Borsley, R. D. (2008). Comparative correlatives and parameters. Lingua, 118 (8), 1139–1157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Borsley, R. D., & Espinal, M-T. (2006). The syntax of comparative correlatives in French and Spanish. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar (pp. 6–26). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (1997). On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20 (3), 229–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (2003). On the periphery: Comparative correlatives in Polish and English. In P. Bański & A. Przepiórkowski (Eds.), Proceedings of fifth Generative Linguistics in Poland conference (pp. 15–28). Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
(2004). An approach to English comparative correlatives. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, Center for Computational Linguistics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (pp. 70–92). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortz, J., Lienert, G. A., & Boehnke, K. (1990). Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar 96), 75–96. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, T., & Hoffmann, T. (2020). The way-construction in World Englishes. English World-Wide, 41 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda, (Eds.) The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–23). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In M. Tallerman & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution, 528–536. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2011). The the… the… construction: Meaning and readings. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 99–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuervo, R. J. (1954). Diccionario de construcción y régimen de la lengua castellana. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (1999). The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (4), 543–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Divjak, D. (2015). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2017). The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dikken, M. den. (2003). Comparative correlatives and verb second. Manuscript, CUNY Graduate Centre.Google Scholar
. (2005). Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry, 36 (4), 497–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64 (3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2010). The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2004). HCFA 3.2 – A program for hierarchical configural frequency analysis for R for Windows.Google Scholar
(2007). Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
(2008). Statistik für Sprachwissenschaftler (Studienbuch Zur Linguistik). Vol. 131. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
(2009). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs: 208). 1st edition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 50–71). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (4), 635–676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Correlativization and degree quantification in Spanish. In P. J. Masullo, E. O’Rourke & C. H. Huang (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2007: Selected papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Pittsburgh, 15–18 March 2007 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory IV), vol. 3041 (pp. 121–142). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1994). Iconicity. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 1629–1633). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2006). Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: The case of preposition placement in English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2 (2), 165–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Obtaining introspective acceptability judgements. In M. Krug & J. Schlüter (Eds.), Research methods in language variation and change (pp. 99–118). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Construction Grammar as cognitive structuralism: The interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English comparative correlatives. English Language and Linguistics, 21 (2), 349–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Comparing comparative correlatives: The German vs. English construction network. In H. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German (pp. 181–203). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., Brunner, T., & Horsch, J. (2020). English comparative correlative constructions: A usage-based account. Open Linguistics, 6 (1), 196–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., Horsch, J., & Brunner, T. (2019). The more data, the better: A usage-based account of the English comparative correlative construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 30 (1), 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horsch, J. (2019). Slovak comparative correlatives: New insights. Jazykovedný Časopis, 70 (2). 180–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Vidíš tým lepšie, čím bližšie sa pozeráš: Slovak comparative correlative CC’ constructions from a Construction Grammar perspective. Jazykovedný Časopis, 71 (1), 25–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a). Slovak comparative correlatives: A usage-based Construction Grammar account. Constructions and Frames, 13 (2), 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Typological profiling of English, Spanish, German and Slovak: A corpus-based approach. Jazykovedný Časopis, 72 (2), 342–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography ASIALEX, 1 1, 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. & Renau, I. (2013). esTenTen, a Vast Web Corpus of Peninsular and American Spanish. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95 1, 12–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Smrž, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The Sketch Engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh EURALEX international congress (pp. 105–116). Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud, France. [URL]
Knowles, J. (1978). The Spanish correlatives of comparison and sentence recursion. Lingua, 46 (4), 205–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N. (2019). Towards a theory of communicative efficiency in human languages. University of Leipzig Habilitation thesis.
Mantlik, A. & Schmid, H-J. (2018). That-complementizer omission in N + BE + that-clauses – register variation or constructional change? In A. Ho-Cheong Leung & W. van der Wurff (eds.), The noun phrase in English: Past and present (pp. 187–222). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1988). The comparative conditional construction in English, German, and Chinese. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (Eds.), General session and parasession on grammaticalization: Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting, February 13–15, 1988, (pp. 176–187). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roig, A. (2014). Quel mode de liaison dans les corrélatives isomorphes « plus…plus » et « autant…autant »? In Actes du IVe CMLF, vol. 81 (pp. 2533–2549.) Berlin: SHS Web of Conferences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez López, C. (2009). Las correlaciones comparativas de proporcionaldad en español. Boletín de la Real Academia Española LXXXIX(CCXCIX), 161–192.Google Scholar
(2014a). Cuanto antes, mejor y otras correlaciones comparativas. In L. Sáez & C. Sánchez López (Eds.), Las construcciones comparativas (pp. 309–337). Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
(2014b). The left periphery of Spanish comparative correlatives. In A. Dufter & A. S. Octavio de Toledo (Eds.), Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and comparative perspectives, vol. 2141 (pp. 155–183). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Coordination and correlatives. In A. Dufter & E. Stark (Eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (pp. 647–690). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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 (3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, A. (2011). Je stärker der Fokus, desto geringer die Einbettung? Zum Status des je-Satzes in je-desto-Gefügen. Linguistische Berichte, 225 1, 43–61.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S. (2017). The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 101–127. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suchomel, V. (2020). Better web corpora for corpus linguistics And NLP. Brno: Masaryk University PhD Thesis.
Szmrecsányi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B., & Röthlisberger, M. (2016). Around the world in three alternations: Modelling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide, 37 1, 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar