Cover not available
Part of
Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Joanna Kopaczyk and Jukka Tyrkkö
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82] 2018
► pp. 15–56

Chapter 2
From lexical bundles to surprisal and language models

Measuring the idiom principle in native and learner language

| University of Zurich and University of Konstanz
| University of Stockholm
We exploit the information theoretic measure of surprisal to analyze the formulaicity of lexical sequences. We first show the prevalence of individual lexical bundles, then we argue that abstracting to surprisal as an information-theoretic measure of lexical bundleness, formulaicity and non-creativity is an appropriate measure for the idiom principle, as it expresses reader expectations and text entropy. As strong and gradient formulaic, idiomatic and selectional preferences prevail on all levels, we argue for the abstraction step from individual bundles to measures of bundleness. We use surprisal to analyse differences between genres of native language use, and learner language at different levels: (a) spoken and written genres of native language (L1); (b) spoken and written learner language (L2), across selected written genres; (c) learner language as compared with native language (L1). We thus test Pawley and Syder (1983)’s hypothesis that native speakers know best how to play the tug-of-war between formulaicity (Sinclair’s idiom principle) and expressiveness (Sinclair’s open-choice principle), which can be measured with Levy and Jaeger (2007)’s uniform information density (UID) which is a principle of minimizing comprehension difficulty. Our goal to abstract away from word sequences also leads us to language models as models of processing, first in the form of a part-of-speech tagger, then in the form of a syntactic parser. While our hypotheses are largely confirmed, we also observe that advanced learners bundle most, and that scientific language may show lower surprisal than spoken language.
Keywords: formulaicity, learner’s language, language processing, collocation, part-of-speech tagging, syntactic parsing
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Related research
  • 3.Materials
  • 4.From frequencies to collocations
    • 4.1Frequency as measure of lexical bundleness
    • 4.2Collocation measures: O/E and T-score
      • 4.2.1Method
      • 4.2.2Results
  • 5.Surprisal as a measure of bundleness
    • 5.1Method
    • 5.2Results
    • 5.3Bundleness of spoken L2 compared to corrected L2
    • 5.4Bundleness of written L2 compared to L1
  • 6.Collocations as non-adjacent relations in a syntactic frame
  • 7.Part-of-Speech tagging model
    • 7.1Method
    • 7.2Results
  • 8.Parser as a language processing model
    • 8.1Method
    • 8.2Parser performance
    • 8.3Parser model fit
  • 9.Conclusions and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82.02sch
References (62)
References
Aggarval, Charu C. 2013. Outlier Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Tapper, Marie. 1998. The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learner’s written English. In Learner English on Computer, Sylviane Granger (ed.), 80–93. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy & Burnard, Lou. 1998. The BNC Handbook. Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Sabine & Evert, Stefan. 2014. Towards a Firthian notion of collocation. In Vernetzungsstrategien, Zugriffsstrukturen und automatisch ermittelte Angaben in Internetwörterbüchern [OPAL – Online publizierte Arbeiten zur Linguistik 2/2014], Andrea Abel & Lothar Lemnitzer (eds), 48–61. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In New Media Language, Jean Aitchison & Diana Lewis (eds), 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Barbieri, Federica. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Cortes, Viviana. 2004. If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bonk, William J. 2000. Testing ESL learners’ knowledge of collocations. Urbana IL: Clearinghouse. <[URL]>
Conrad, Susan & Biber, Douglas. 2004. The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica 20: 56–71.Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, Greaves, Chris, Sinclair, John McH. & Warren, Martin. 2009. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2): 236–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Frey, Eric & Jalkanen, Isaac. 2009. The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (1): Lexical access. In Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 35], Ute Römer & Rainer Schulze (eds), 89–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Frey, Eric. 2009. The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (2): Affective priming. Formulaic Language 2: 473–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Simpson Vlach, Rita & Maynard, Carson. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. Tesol Quarterly 42(3): 375–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. TEXT 20(1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt. 2009. Formulaic language from a learner perspective: What the learner needs to know. In Formulaic Language, Vol. II: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 323–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2009. Corpora and collocations. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds), 1212–1248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L. & Bod, Rens. 2011. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to the hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 22(6): 829–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Fernandez Monsalve, Irene, Thompson, Robin L. & Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2013. Reading-time data for evaluating broad-coverage models of English sentence processing Behavior Research Methods 45: 1182–1190 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fossum, Victoria & Levy, Roger. 2012. Sequential vs. hierachical models of human incremental sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2012), Montreal, Canada, Roger Levy & David Reitter (eds), 61–69. Montreal: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel. 2001. Corpus variation and parser performance. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 167–202, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2013. 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next…. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137–166. Special issue Current Issues in Phraseology, Sebastian Hoffmann, Bettina Fischer-Starcke & Andrea Sand (eds). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Selected Approaches, Aquilino Sánchez & Moisés Almela (eds), 269–291. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 2009. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Anthony P. Cowie (ed.), 185–204. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, & Tyson, Stephanie. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15(1): 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, Emi, Uchimoto, Kiyotaka & Isahara, Hitoshi. 2005. Error annotation for corpus of Japanese learner English. Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora (LINC 2005). <[URL]>
Ishikawa, Shin. 2009. Vocabulary in interlanguage: A study on corpus of English essays written by Asian university students (CEEAUS). In Phraseology, Corpus Linguistics and Lexicography: Papers from Phraseology 2009 in Japan, Katsumasa Yagi & Takaaki Kanzaki (eds), 87–100. Nishinomiya: Kwansei Gakuin University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris & Thorp, Dilys. 2007. A corpus investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS Academic Writing task. In IELTS Collected Papers: Research in Speaking and Writing Assessment, Linda Taylor & Peter Falvey (eds), 316–378. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2012. Applications of the lexical bundles method in historical corpus research. In Corpus Data across Languages and Disciplines, Piotr Pezik (ed.), 83–95. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2003. A probabilistic parser as a model of global processing difficulty. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Richard Alterman & David Kirsh (eds), 646–651. Boston MA: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
. 2010. Cognitively plausible models of human language processing. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, 11–16 July, 60–67. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Lee, David Y. W. 2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the bnc jungle. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 37–72.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2000. Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4): 675–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Hans Martin & Schneider, Gerold. 2011. A large-scale investigation of verb-attached prepositional phrases. In Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Vol. 6: Methodological and Historical Dimensions of Corpus Linguistics, Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Rayson & Geoffrey Leech (eds). Helsinki: Varieng.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 19, Bernhard Schlökopf, John Platt & Thomas Hoffman (eds), 849–856. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1): 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter R. 1999. Adjective Intensification – Learners Versus Native Speakers. A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Malvern, David D., Richards, Brian J., Chipere, Ngoni & Durán, Pilar. 2004. Lexical Diversity and Language Development. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Mitch, Santorini, Beatrice & Marcinkiewicz, Mary Ann. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19: 313–330.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard & Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book [Routledge Applied Linguistics Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Millar, Neil. 2011. The processing of malformed learner collocations. Applied Linguistics 32(2):129–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, James R. 1980. A lexical phrase-grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 14(3): 337–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2003. The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2): 223–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ng, Hwee Tou, Wu, Siew Mei, Briscoe, Ted, Hadiwinoto, Christian, Hendy Susanto, Raymond & Bryant, Christoper (eds). 2014. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning: Shared Task. Baltimore MD: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
NICT, 2012. Japanese Learner English Corpus (JLE, Version 4.1, 2012). <[URL]>
Ohlrogge, Aaron. 2009. Formulaic expressions in intermediate EFL writing assessment. In Formulaic Language, Vol. II: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 375–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Hodgetts Syder, Frances. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Language and Communication, Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds), 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pecina, Pavel. 2009. Lexical Association Measures: Collocation Extraction [Studies in Computational and Theoretical Linguistics 4]. Prague: Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
Read, John & Nation, Paul. 2006. An investigation of the lexical dimension of the IELTS speaking test. In IELTS Research Reports, Vol. 6, Petronella McGovern & Steve Walsh (eds). IELTS Australia and British Council. <[URL]>
Ronan, Patricia & Schneider, Gerold. 2015. Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(3): 326–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Helmut. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold. 2008. Hybrid Long-Distance Functional Dependency Parsing. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Seretan, Violeta. 2011. Syntax-Based Collocation Extraction. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1951. Prediction and entropy of printed English. The Bell System Technical Journal 30: 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. & Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Linear Unit Grammar: Integrating Speech and Writing [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 25]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna & Martinez, Ron. 2014. The Idiom Principle revisited. Applied Linguistics 36(5): 549–569.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1965. The Psycho-Biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. London: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Drury, Brett & Samuel Morais Drury
2022. Lexical Bundle Variation in Business Actors’ Public Communications. In Text, Speech, and Dialogue [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13502], ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Gerold
2022. Chapter 7. Syntactic changes in verbal clauses and noun phrases from 1500 onwards. In English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 358], ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.