CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Thinking About Multiword Constructions: Usage‐Based Approaches to Acquisition and Processing

Open access
Ellis, Nick C., Ogden, Dave C.·2017·Topics in Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1111/tops.12256
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Usage‐based approaches to language hold that we learn multiword expressions as patterns of language from language usage, and that knowledge of these patterns underlies fluent language processing. This paper explores these claims by focusing upon verb–argument constructions (VACs) such as “V(erb) about n(oun phrase).” These are productive constructions that bind syntax, lexis, and semantics. It presents (a) analyses of usage patterns of English VACs in terms of their grammatical form, semantics, lexical constituency, and distribution patterns in large corpora; (b) patterns of VAC usage in child‐directed speech and child language acquisition; and (c) investigations of VAC free‐association and psycholinguistic studies of online processing. We conclude that VACs are highly patterned in usage, that this patterning drives language acquisition, and that language processing is sensitive to the forms of the syntagmatic construction and their distributional statistics, the contingency of their association with meaning, and spreading activation and prototypicality effects in semantic reference. Language users have rich implicit knowledge of the statistics of multiword sequences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/tops.12256

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Only in the last few years has it become possible to bring together cognition, corpora, and computing at scale to triangulate research in usage-based language learning.

    “Only in the last few years has it become possible to bring together cognition, corpora, and computing at scale to triangulate research in usagebased language learning (N.C. Ellis, 2017).”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as N.C. Ellis, 2017

    The Introduction brings together corpus-linguistic, psychological, and psycholinguistic evidence for usage-based accounts, and Section 2 describes analysis of a 100-million-word corpus. The paper does not say that combining cognition, corpora, and computing at scale became possible only in the last few years; that timing claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT-super(*) theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 165-180. doi:10.2307/1423026 · DOI
  3. Arnon, I., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). The role of multiword building blocks in explaining L1 À L2 differences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 621-636.
  4. Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and speech, 56(3), 349-371. doi:10.1177/0023830913484891 · DOI
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Ad hoc categories. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 87-88). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In R. D. Janda & B. D. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602-623). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  7. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  8. Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70, 066111. doi:10.1103/physreve.70.066111 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Croft, W. (2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  10. Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 570-590, 1-22. doi:10.1093/applin/amt056 · DOI
  11. Culicover, P. W., Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2017). Multiword constructions in the grammar. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 552-568.
  12. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2010). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Elio, R., & Anderson, J. R. (1984). The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. Memory & Cognition, 12(1), 20-30. doi:10.3758/bf03196994 · DOI
  14. Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17-44. doi:10.1017/s0267190512000025 · DOI
  15. Ellis, N. C. (2016b). On-line processing of Verb-Argument Constructions: Visual recognition thresholds and naming. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14, 105-135.
  16. 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. doi:10.1075/arcl. · DOI
  17. 08ell Ellis, N. C., & O'Donnell, M. B. (2011). Robust language acquisition-An emergent consequence of language as a complex adaptive system. In L. Carlson, C. H€ olscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of 618 · DOI
  18. N. C. Ellis, D. C. Ogden / Topics in Cognitive Science 9 (2017) the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3512-3517). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
  19. Ellis, N. C., & O'Donnell, M. B. (2012). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In J. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 265-304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  20. Ellis, N. C., R€ omer, U., & O'Donnell, M. B. (2016). Language usage, acquisition, and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  21. Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (Eds.) (1996). Grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.
  22. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  24. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive. Linguistics, 15, 289-316. doi:10.1515/cogl.2004.011 · DOI
  25. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behaviour. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  27. Kilgarriff, A. (2005). Language is never, ever, ever, random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 263-276. doi:10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.263 · DOI
  28. Kiss, G. R. (1973). Grammatical word classes: A learning process and its simulation. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 7, 1-41. doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60064-x · DOI
  29. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary analysis. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
  30. MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 581-611). London: Elsevier Inc.
  31. McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Computational investigations of multiword chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 637-652.
  32. McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2012). Prompt type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners' production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 355-377. doi:10.1017/s0272263112000113 · DOI
  33. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.
  34. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353-363. doi:10.1037/h0025953 · DOI
  35. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1-23. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014 · DOI
  36. N. Groom, & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, grammar, text and discourse in honour of Susan Hunston (pp. 43- 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  37. Sagae, K., Davis, E., Lavie, A., MacWhinney, B., & Wintner, S. (2007). High-accuracy annotation and parsing of CHILDES transcripts. Proceedings of the ACL-2007 workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language acquisition (pp. 25-32). Prague: Czech Republic.
  38. Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: Routledge.
  39. Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  41. Theakston, A. L., & Lieven, E. (2017). Multiunit sequences in first language acquisition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 588-603.
  42. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.
  43. Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. 620

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis, N. C., & Ogden, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Ellis, Nick C.
ORCID
Ellis, Nick C.
Venue
Topics in Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-24
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
604-620
ISSN
  • 1756-8757 (ISSN-L)
  • 1756-8765
DOI
10.1111/tops.12256
OpenAlex
W2589432993
Cited by
66
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Topics in Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
usage-based linguistics, language acquisition, language processing, child-directed speech, distributional statistics, spreading activation, prototypicality, free association, online processing, semantic reference
MeSH terms
Humans, Language, Language Development, Learning, Psycholinguistics, Semantics

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