Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on `alternations'
Abstract
This paper introduces an extension of distinctive-collocate analysis that takes into account grammatical structure and is specifically geared to investigating pairs of semantically similar grammatical constructions and the lexemes that occur in them. The method, referred to as `distinctive-collexeme analysis', identifies lexemes that exhibit a strong preference for one member of the pair as opposed to the other, and thus makes it possible to identify subtle distributional differences between the members of such a pair. The method can be applied in the context of what is sometimes referred to as `grammatical alternation' (e.g. the dative alternation), but it can also be applied to other choices provided by the grammar (such as the two future tense constructions in English). The method has two main applications. First, it can reveal subtle differences between seemingly synonymous constructions, many of which are difficult to identify on the basis of more traditional approaches. Second, it can be used to investigate the very notion of `alternation'; we show that many alternations are much more restricted than has hitherto been assumed, and thus confirm the claims of recent, non-derivational views of grammar.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Contingency of association is key in cognitive-linguistic, corpus-based, and statistical models of language structure such as collostructional analysis.
“Contingency of association is similarly key in cognitive-linguistic, corpus-based, and statistical models of language structure like collostructional analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch, 2004;Stefanowitsch & Gries, 2003).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Gries & Stefanowitsch, 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0023851 · Cited by 595 · see citing works
Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives
Wulff, Römer, & Swales (2012) · Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory · doi:10.1515/cllt-2012-0006 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Murakami, A., & Ellis, N. C. (2022) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12500 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark
- University of Bremen (DE)
- Venue
- International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2004-04-29
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 97-129
- ISSN
- 1384-6655 (ISSN-L)
- 1569-9811
- OpenAlex
- W2110514037
- Cited by
- 961
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 51 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 98 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 61.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Corpus Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Lexicography and Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › linguistics and terminology studies
- Keywords
- grammatical alternation, dative alternation, grammatical constructions, collocations, distributional differences, grammatical structure
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review