Revisiting N waiting to happen: word, construction, and corpus choices in a collostructional analysis
-
John Newman
Abstract
In undertaking any collostructional analysis, a researcher must make decisions concerning the properties of words, constructions, and corpora. Each of these crucial aspects of the analysis can be dealt with in alternative ways: words can be investigated as either lemmas or inflected forms; a construction can be characterized in alternative ways (reliance on semantics or syntax or some combination thereof, the span of the construction, etc.); the choice of corpus (or corpora) will be influenced by whether a researcher has an interest in different genres and varieties, whether the study is synchronic or diachronic, etc. I review various ways in which a researcher’s decisions about words, constructions, and corpora are relevant to a corpus-based study of N waiting to happen, referencing throughout the collostructional analysis of this construction by Stefanowitsch and Gries. The approach adopted here can be seen as supplementing Stefanowitsch and Gries’ original collostructional analysis. It illustrates how multifarious the results of a corpus-based study of constructions can be and serves as a reminder that no one corpus-based measure can possibly answer all the questions linguists might reasonably ask about a construction.
Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
-
Data: The original concordance lines taken from the BNC and COCA, text type and year of publication, the full lists of head noun tokens and lemmas, and the R code used to carry out the statistical analyses are all available at https://osf.io/vcs3q/?view_only=a90c456694cf4c849cee30ce4182a253.
References
Begagić, Mirna. 2018. Semantic preference and semantic prosody: A theoretical overview. Journal of Education and Humanities 1(2). 65–88. https://doi.org/10.14706/jeh2018121.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2017. Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In Nikolas Gisborne & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Defaults in morphological theory, 18–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1996. Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie 85(1–2). 1–32.Suche in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2007. TIME Magazine Corpus. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/time/.Suche in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 1 billion words, 1990–present. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Suche in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/.Suche in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/.Suche in Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021. Collostructions: An R implementation for the family of collostructional methods. Package version v.0.2.0. Available at: https://sfla.ch/collostructions/.Suche in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 505–536. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0092.Suche in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3). 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri.Suche in Google Scholar
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K. Gray, William Brockman, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker & Martin A. Nowak. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014). 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644.Suche in Google Scholar
Newman, John. 2010. Balancing acts: Empirical pursuits in cognitive linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics, 79–100. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.79Suche in Google Scholar
Newman, John. 2011. Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 521–559. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-63982011000200010.Suche in Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.2Suche in Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 2004. Utterly content in each other’s company: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par.Suche in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2003. Reading concordances. Harlow: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Suche in Google Scholar
Stewart, Dominic. 2010. Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203870075Suche in Google Scholar
Younes, Nadja & Ulf-Dietrich Reips. 2019. Guideline for improving the reliability of Google Ngram studies: Evidence from religious terms. PLoS One 14(3). e0213554. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213554.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
