Chapter 3
How register-specific is probabilistic grammatical knowledge?
A programmatic sketch and a case study on the dative alternation with give
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.
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
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data:
A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using
R. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen
zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern (Relationships between size and ordering of
constituents). Indogermanische
Forschungen 25: 110–142.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Belsley, David A., Kuh, Edwin & Welsch, Roy E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics:
Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York NY: John Wiley. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation
across Speech and
Writing. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register
as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 8(1): 9–37. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2019. Register,
Genre, and Style, 2nd
edn. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas & Egbert, Jesse. 2018. Register
Variation
Online. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written
English. Harlow: Pearson Education.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting
syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of
English. Language 86(1): 168–213. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
D’Arcy, Alexandra & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2015. Not always
variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and
Change 27(3): 255–285. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus
of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion Words from Speakers in 20 Countries (GloWbE). <[URL]> (25 May 2021).
Davies, Mark. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Geleyn, Tim. 2017. Syntactic
variation and diachrony: The case of the Dutch dative alternation. Corpus Linguistics
and Linguistic
Theory 13(1): 65–96. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives
in British English Dialects [Topics in English Linguistics
50.3]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation
in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and
Linguistics 18(3): 471–496. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan T. 2015. The most under-used
statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects)
models. Corpora 10(1): 95–125. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Guy, Gregory R. 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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic
Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, William. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, William. 2010. Principles
of Linguistic Change, Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors [Language in Society
39]. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production
shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in
Psychology 4: 226. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rickford, John R. 2014. Situation: Stylistic
variation in sociolinguistic corpora and theory. Language and Linguistics
Compass 8(11): 590–603. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018a. Regional
Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative
Alternation. PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018b. Guidelines
for the Dative Alternation. Ms.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive
indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive
Linguistics 28(4): 673–710. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2016. So sick or so cool? The
language of youth on the internet. Language in
Society 45(1): 1–32. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Peaks
beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language
change. Language 85(1): 58–108. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
York, Richard. 2012. Residualization
is not the answer: Rethinking how to address multicollinearity. Social Science
Research 6(41): 1379–1386. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition
in Language Change: The Rise of the English Dative Alternation [Topics in English Linguistics
103]. Berlin: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three 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 0:0
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.