Cover not available
Part of
Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation
Edited by Elena Seoane and Douglas Biber
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 103] 2021
► pp. 51–84

Chapter 3
How register-specific is probabilistic grammatical knowledge?

A programmatic sketch and a case study on the dative alternation with give

 | KU Leuven
 | University of Birmingham
 | Vrije Universiteit Brussel | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
While there is preliminary evidence about the importance of register in linguistic choice-making processes, systematic studies focusing on the interaction between register and language-internal constraints are lacking in variationist linguistics. This contribution sketches an ongoing project in which two well-understood grammatical alternations (dative alternation and future marker alternation) are analysed with variationist methods, focusing on the role of register defined at the intersection of mode (spoken vs written) and formality (formal vs informal). Probabilistic corpus models will be complemented with rating experiments to investigate to what extent they correlate with participants’ ratings, and to illustrate the importance of methodological diversity in investigating usage-based theories of grammar. We present corpus results of a case study on the dative alternation with give.
Keywords: register, variationist analysis, usage-based approach, probabilistic grammar, dative alternation, grammatical choice-making, two-fold methodology, formality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Register in variationist linguistics
  • 3.A programmatic sketch
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Methodology
      • 3.2.1Corpus data
      • 3.2.2Experimental track
  • 4.Case study: The dative alternation in English
    • 4.1Variable context
    • 4.2Language-internal constraints
      • 4.2.1Constituent length
      • 4.2.2Pronominality
      • 4.2.3Complexity
      • 4.2.4Frequency
      • 4.2.5Definiteness
      • 4.2.6Animacy
      • 4.2.7Verb sense
    • 4.3Analysis
    • 4.4Results
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.03eng
References (74)
References
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balota, David A. & Chumbley, James I. 1984. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 10(3): 340–357.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas M., Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern (Relationships between size and ordering of constituents). Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
Belsley, David A., Kuh, Edwin & Welsch, Roy E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York NY: John Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1): 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies 1(1): 42–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2019. Register, Genre, and Style, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Egbert, Jesse. 2018. Register Variation Online. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse, Gray, Bethany, Oppliger, Rahel & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2016. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds), 351–375. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J. & Tanaka, Mikihiro. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118(2): 172–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118(2): 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bušta, Jan, Herman, Ondřej, Jakubíček, Miloš, Krek, Simon & Novak, Blaž. 2017. JSI Newsfeed Corpus. Paper presented at the 9th International Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Birmingham.
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 25–56. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2015. Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change 27(3): 255–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries (GloWbE). <[URL]> (25 May 2021).
. 2018. The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. <[URL]> (25 May 2021).
Ehmer, Oliver & Rosemeyer, Malte. 2018. When “questions” are not questions. Inferences and conventionalization in Spanish but-prefaced partial interrogatives. Open Linguistics 4: 70–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Marilyn & Bresnan, Joan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds), 295–312. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garretson, Gregory, O’Connor, Catherine, Skarabela, Barbora & Hogan, Marjorie. 2004. Coding practices used in the Project Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases. Ms, Boston University.Google Scholar
Geleyn, Tim. 2017. Syntactic variation and diachrony: The case of the Dutch dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13(1): 65–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English Dialects [Topics in English Linguistics 50.3]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 471–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2018. Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3): 385–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1): 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In Cognitive Sociolinguistics [Cognitive Linguistics Research 39], Gitte Kristiansen & René Dirven (eds), 153–204. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307. [URL]
Guy, Gregory R. 2005. Letters to Language. Language 81(3): 561–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Coherence, constraints and quantities. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 44, University of Toronto.
Hawkins, John A. 1995. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, John R. & Flower, Linda S. 1980. Identifying the organisation of writing processes. In Cognitive Processes in Writing, Lee W. Gregg & Erwin Steinberg (eds), 3–30. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1): 3–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L. 2013. A Variationist Approach to Cross-Register Language Variation and Change. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.
Klavan, Jane & Divjak, Dagmar. 2016. The cognitive plausibility of statistical classification models: Comparing textual and behavioral evidence. Folia Linguistica 50(2), 355–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulf. 2012. Language of immediacy – Language of distance: Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In Communicative spaces: Variation, contact, and change, Claudia Lange, Beatrix Weber & Göran Wolf (eds), 441–473. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, John Baugh & Joel Scherzer (eds), 28–53. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors [Language in Society 39]. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marx, Maarten & Schuth, Anne. 2010. DutchParl: The parliamentary documents in Dutch. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner & Daniel Tapias (eds), 3670–3677. Valletta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). <[URL]> (25 May 2021).
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Schielzeth, Holger. 2012. A general and simple method for obtaining R² from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2): 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1): 99–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (25 May 2021).
Rayner, Keith & Duffy, Susan A. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14(3): 191–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. 2014. Situation: Stylistic variation in sociolinguistic corpora and theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(11): 590–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018a. Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
. 2018b. Guidelines for the Dative Alternation. Ms.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4): 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2011. Introduction: On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Converging Evidence: Methodological and Theoretical Issues for Linguistic Research, Doris Schönefeld (ed.), 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shih, Stephanie & Grafmiller, Jason. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at the LSA 85th Annual Meeting, 6–9 January 2011, Pittsburgh PA.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 62(4): 685–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Register in variationist linguistics. Register Studies 1(1): 76–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Annette, Tagliamonte, Sali & Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2013. Comparative sociolinguistics. In Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 2nd edn, Jack K. Chambers & Natalie Schilling (eds), 130–156. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. So sick or so cool? The language of youth on the internet. Language in Society 45(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85(1): 58–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, ten Bosch, Louis, Boves, Lou, Cranen, Bert & van Halteren, Hans. 2013. Choosing alternatives: Using Bayesian networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 227–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Jennifer E. Arnold. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds). Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 119–154. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Lee H. & Fisicaro, Sebastiano A. 2014. What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do). Journal of Memory and Language 72: 37–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
York, Richard. 2012. Residualization is not the answer: Rethinking how to address multicollinearity. Social Science Research 6(41): 1379–1386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carletta, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Nikitina, Tatiana, O’Connor, Catherine & Wasow, Tom. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, July 2004, Bonnie Webber & Donna Byron (eds), 118–125. East Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation [Topics in English Linguistics 103]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Walker, Neil, Saveliev, Anatoly A. & Smith, Graham M. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Egbert, Jesse, Douglas Biber, Daniel Keller & Marianna Gracheva
2024. Register and the dual nature of functional correspondence: accounting for text-linguistic variation between registers, within registers, and without registers. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:3 ► pp. 505 ff. DOI logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Alexandra Engel
2023. A variationist perspective on the comparative complexity of four registers at the intersection of mode and formality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:1 ► pp. 79 ff. DOI logo
Brysbaert, Jorina & Karen Lahousse
2022. Marking Contrastive Topics in a Topic Shift Context: Contrastive Adverbs versus Emphatic Pronouns. Discours :31 DOI logo
Engel, Alexandra & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2022. Variable grammars are variable across registers: future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change 34:3 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 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.