Article published in:
Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston
Edited by Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles and Suganthi John
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 73] 2015
► pp. 43–72

Chapter 2. Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions

Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge

| Georgia State University
| University of Pennsylvania
| University of Michigan
This paper takes patterns identified in COBUILD Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs (Francis et al. 1996) as a starting point for the systematic, large-scale analysis of English verb-argument constructions (VACs), using both corpus/computational methods and psycholinguistic experiments. We work in an iterative cycle to define, search, review and refine patterns to retrieve VACs from a parsed version of the BNC and examine the distributions of the verb types and their token frequencies for each VAC. The findings allow us to make predictions regarding language users’ knowledge of verbs in constructions. We then test these predictions in psycholinguistic experiments, in which native and non-native speakers of English think of the first word that comes to mind to fill the V slot in a particular VAC frame. We compare the results from the experiments and the corpus analysis in terms of verb selection preferences. This research demonstrates the productive synergy of corpus linguistic and psycholinguistic methods and findings.
Published online: 30 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.03rom
References
Adamic, L.A. & Huberman, B.A
2002 Zipf’s law and the Internet.Glottometrics 3: 143-150.Google Scholar
Andersen, Ø., Nioche, J., Briscoe, E.J. & Carroll, J
2008 The BNC Parsed with RASP4UIMA. Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC08), 28-30.
Briscoe, E.J., Carroll, J. & Watson, R
2006 The Second Release of the RASP System. Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Interactive Presentation Sessions, Sydney, Australia, 77-80. Crossref
Ellis, N.C. & Ferreira-Junior, F.
2009 Constructions and their acquisition:Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 111-139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C., O’Donnell, M.B. & Römer, U
2013 Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning.63(Supp. 1):25–51. Doi: CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics 25(1): 55-98.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R. & Maynard, C
2008 Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42(3): 375-396.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E
1996 Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns, 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
2003 Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7: 219-224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E., Casenhiser, D.M. & Sethuraman, N
2004 Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 289-316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D. & Berglund Prytz, Y
2008 Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb - A Practical Guide [English Corpus Linguistics 6]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G
1999 Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D
2003 Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In Probabilistic Linguistics, R. Bod, J. Hay & S. Jannedy (eds), 39-96. Harvard MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mason, O. & Hunston, S
2004 The automatic recognition of verb patterns: A feasibility study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 253-270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A
2012 Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McEnery, A. & Hardie, A
2012 Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Miller, G.A
2009 WordNet - About Us. Princeton NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J.
2009 The lexicogrammar of present-day Indian English:Corpus-based perspectives on structural nativisation. In Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 35], U. Römer & R. Schulze (eds), 117-135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M.B., Ellis, N.C. & Corden, G
2012 Exploring semantics in verb argument constructions using community identification algorithms. Paper presented at the Language & Network Symposium: The International Conference on Network Science NETSCI 2012.Google Scholar
Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S. & Michelizzi, J
2004 WordNet::Similarity –Measuring the relatedness of concepts. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2004) , 38-41.
Shanks, D.R
1995 The Psychology of Associative Learning. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.M
2003 Reading Concordances: An Introduction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
2004 Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zipf, G.K
1935 The Psycho-biology of Language. An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Ellis, Nick C.
2016. On-line processing of verb-argument constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 105 ff. Crossref logo
ELLIS, NICK C.
2016. Online processing of Verb–Argument Constructions: lexical decision and meaningfulness. Language and Cognition 8:3 ► pp. 391 ff. Crossref logo
Ellis, Nick C., Matthew B. O’Donnell & Ute Römer
2014.  Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4:4 ► pp. 405 ff. Crossref logo
Gedik, Tan Arda
2021. An analysis of lexicogrammatical development in English textbooks in Turkey: A usage-based construction grammar approach. ExELL 9:1 ► pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo
Groom, Nicholas
2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 291 ff. Crossref logo
Huang, Yan, Akira Murakami, Theodora Alexopoulou & Anna Korhonen
2021. Subcategorization frame identification for learner English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26:2 ► pp. 187 ff. Crossref logo
Kyle, Kristopher & Scott Crossley
2017. Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing 34:4 ► pp. 513 ff. Crossref logo
Perek, Florent
2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of theway-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14:1 ► pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
Römer, Ute
2016. Teaming up and mixing methods: collaborative and cross-disciplinary work in corpus research on phraseology. Corpora 11:1 ► pp. 113 ff. Crossref logo
Yan, Hengbin & Yinghui Li
2021.  In Smart Education and e-Learning 2021 [Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 240], ► pp. 77 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 july 2022. 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.