Cover not available
Part of
Causation, Permission, and Transfer: Argument realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET verbs
Edited by Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 167] 2015
► pp. 295–325

Low-level patterning of pronominal subjects and verb tenses in English

| University of Alberta

This paper explores patterns of co-occurrence of selected subject pronouns (I, you, she, he) with past, present, and future tense uses of English verbs, with a focus on give, send, and bring. Statistically significant overuse and underuse of the subject pronouns are determined by reference to overall frequencies of subject pronouns and verb tenses in two corpora of spoken language. A key result is that I is overused with give, send, and bring in the future tense but underused in the present and past tenses. Co-occurrence preferences such as these are not easily intuited and demonstrate the value of corpus-based methodologies in refining our notions of the semantics of argument structure.

Published online: 14 January 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.167.11new
References
Agresti, Alan
2007 An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, 2nd edn. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C
1997 Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernard, Lou
(ed.) 2007 Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Published by Research Technologies Service at Oxford University Computing Services. [URL] (12 October 2013)Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randi
1998 Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
2000  Give and person suppletion. LINGUIST List 11.1166. [URL] (12 October 2013).Google Scholar
2003 Recipient person suppletion in the verb ‘give’. In Language and Life. Essays in Memory of Kenneth L Pike, Mary Ruth Wise, Thomas N. Headland & Ruth Brend (eds), 265–281. Dallas TX: SIL International and The University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Creider, Chet A. & Creider, Jane Tapsubei
1989 A Grammar of Nandi. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2004– BYU-BNC (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). [URL] (15 April 2014).
2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. [URL] (15 April 2014).
Dixon, Robert M.W
1991 A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. New York and Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005 A Semantic Approach to English Grammar, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Garnsey, Susan M
2004 Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80(4): 748–775. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Knowledge of grammar includes knowledge of syntactic probabilities. Language 82(2): 405–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, Jurafsky, Dan & Roland, Douglas
2004 Verb subcategorization frequencies: American English corpus data, methodological studies, and cross-corpus comparisons. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36: 432–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Thomas
2006 Exploring variability within and between corpora. Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a Statistics for Linguistics with R. A Practical Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013b Basic significance testing. In Research Methods in Linguistics, Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds), 316–336. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L
1972 A new perspective on American Indian linguistics. In New Perspectives on the Pueblos, Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), 87–103. Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K
1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Rychly, Pavel, Smrz, Pavel & Tugwell, David
2004 The Sketch Engine. Proceedings of EURALEX 2004, Lorient, France, 105–116. [URL] (12 October 2013).Google Scholar
Knowles, Gerry & Don, Zuraidah Mohd
2004 The notion of a “lemma”. Headwords, roots and lexical sets. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N
1971 Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D
2003 Probabilistic syntax. In Probabilistic Linguistics, Rens Bod, 
Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds), 289–341. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newman, John
1996 Give. A Cognitive Linguistic Study [Cognitive Linguistics Research 7]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005 Three-place predicates. A cognitive linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 27: 145–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, John & Rice, Sally
2006 Transitivity schemas of English eat and drink in the BNC. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Stefan Thomas Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), 225–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2014 R. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Reesink, Ger
2013 Expressing the GIVE event in Papuan languages. A preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17(2): 217–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne
2001 Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds), 61–89. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Point of View and Grammar. Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 11]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1976 Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Thomas
2003 Collostructions. Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin
2001 Discovering the usual with corpora: The case of remember. In Corpus Linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium, Rita C. Simpson & John Swales (eds), 116–114. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony
1991 A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], 
Elisabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1998 One child’s early talk about possession. In The Linguistics of Giving [Typological Studies in Language 36], John Newman (ed.), 349–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Lier, Eva
2012 Referential effects on the expression of three-participant events across languages. An introduction in memory of Anna Siewierska. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). [URL] (12 October 2013). DOI logoGoogle Scholar