15 - Combining elicitation data with corpus data
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2014
Summary
Introduction
Studies of grammatical variation often tend to focus on one particular method, usually the one with an affinity to the specific field of linguistics or linguistic framework that the researcher works in (see Krug, Rosenbach and Schlüter, Introduction, this volume). The present article argues for the merits of combining evidence from different methods (‘converging evidence’) when studying grammatical variation rather than focussing on one data source alone. Underlying this approach is the idea that there is no privileged type of data or method in the study of grammatical variation, and that results from whatever method applied will be strengthened by results obtained from another method. In the following, I will demonstrate how elicited data and corpus data can be combined to get converging evidence on a particularly notorious problem in studies of grammatical variation, namely the problem of factor interaction, which I will exemplify on the basis of an earlier case study on English genitive variation (Rosenbach 2005).
The problem of factor correlation
The phenomenon of grammatical variation refers to the fact that speakers often have various forms/constructions at their disposal to express essentially the same (propositional) meaning. One of the greatest obstacles encountered by researchers on grammatical variation is the presence of various, often highly correlating factors determining the choice of variants. Take the example of English genitive variation, i.e. the variation between s-genitives, as in the king's daughter, and of-genitives, as in the daughter of the king. The choice between the two is determined by a variety of factors, of which I mention only some of the most important ones (see e.g. Altenberg 1982; Jucker 1993; Anschutz 1997; Rosenbach 2002, 2005; O'Connor et al. 2004; Hinrichs and Szmrecsanyi 2007). For example, the s-genitive is preferred when the possessor is:
(a) animate (preferably human),
(b) given (or topical),
(c) short,
(d) high in referentiality (e.g. as a proper noun), or
(e) if the possessive relation expressed is a prototypical one for possession.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Research Methods in Language Variation and Change , pp. 278 - 294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2013
References
, , and 2000. ‘Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering’, Language 76(1): 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation’, in and (eds.), Roots: linguistics in search of its evidential base. (Studies in generative grammar.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 75–96.Google Scholar
and 2010. ‘Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English’, Language 86: 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in , and (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 69–94.Google Scholar
and 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2006. ‘Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: the case of preposition placement in English relative clauses’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2002. Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. ‘Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English’, Language 81(3): 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 2
- Cited by