Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- 22 Theories All the Way Down
- 23 Eye-Tracking and Self-Paced Reading
- 24 Nothing Entirely New under the Sun: ERP Responses to Manipulations of Syntax
- 25 Corpus Studies of Syntax
- 26 Syntax and Speaking
- 27 Neuroimaging
- Index
- References
25 - Corpus Studies of Syntax
from Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I General Issues in Acceptability Experiments
- Part II Experimental Studies of Specific Phenomena
- Part III Experimental Studies of Specific Populations and Language Families
- Part IV Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability
- 22 Theories All the Way Down
- 23 Eye-Tracking and Self-Paced Reading
- 24 Nothing Entirely New under the Sun: ERP Responses to Manipulations of Syntax
- 25 Corpus Studies of Syntax
- 26 Syntax and Speaking
- 27 Neuroimaging
- Index
- References
Summary
Recent developments in the experimental syntax program have challenged some of the standard practices for collecting and analyzing linguistic evidence. In doing so, the methodological and theoretical gap between other areas of language science has begun to close. It is more common than ever before for research in theoretical syntax to incorporate multiple methodologies in the same study. Online elicitation methods, adopted from psycholinguistics, have been the most visible new addition to the theoretical syntactician’s toolbox. Yet observational data, in the form of corpora, has begun to play a larger role in contemporary syntactic investigation. The aim of this chapter is to contextualize the evolving role of corpus studies in syntactic investigation as a methodology that can be used to externally validate results from other methods as well as generate hypotheses. I highlight theoretical and practical advantages of employing corpora in tandem with other methods and point to future directions where gains can still be made.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 687 - 713Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Aarts, J. (1991). Intuition-based and observation-based grammars. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 56–74.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, D. (1965). Pseudo-procedures in Linguistics. In Abercrombie, D., ed., Studies in Phonetics and Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–119.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. (1978). NP preposing in Noun Phrases. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., & Zeschel, A. (2010). Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora, 5(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, S., Clear, J., & Ostler, N. (1992). Corpus design criteria. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 7(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
Badiola, L., Delgado, R., Sande, A., & Stefanich, S. (2018). Code-switching attitudes and their effects on acceptability judgment tasks. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(1), 5–24.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993a). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 219–241.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993b). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bick, E. (1997). Turning a Dependency Treebank into a PSG-style Constituent Treebank. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06). Paris: European Language Resources Association, pp. 1961–1964.Google Scholar
Brants, T. (2000). TnT: A statistical part-of-speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 224–231.Google Scholar
Braze, D. (2002). Grammaticality, acceptability, and sentence processing: A psycholinguistic study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Bourma, G., Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J., eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: KNAW, pp. 1–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35(1), 26–58.Google Scholar
Ford, M. & Bresnan, J. (2010). Studying syntactic variation using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Krug, M. & Schlüter, J., eds., Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Francom, J. & Hulden, M. (2008). Parallel multi-theory annotation of syntactic structure. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). Paris: European Language Resources Association, pp. 2339–2343.Google Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(1), 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. & Fedorenko, E. (2013). The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1–2), 88–124.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125.Google Scholar
Halácsy, P., Kornai, A., & Oravecz, C. (2007). HunPos: An open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the ACL on Interactive Poster and Demonstration Sessions. Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 209–212.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2005). Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(3), 257–297.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (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
Hofmeister, P., Arnon, I., Jaeger, F., Sag, I., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1), 48–87.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Sag, I. A. (2010). Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language, 86(2), 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D. (1989). First Language Acquisition: Method, Description and Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klein, D. & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 423–430.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1996). When intuitions fail. In McNair, L., Singer, K., Dolbrin, L., & Aucon, M., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 77–106.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2012). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, J. H., Clark, A., & Lappin, S. (2016). Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1202–1241.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1991). The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In Aijmer, K. & Altenberg, B., eds., English Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 20–41.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703.Google Scholar
Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, J. Hay, & Jannedy, , eds., Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 289–341.Google Scholar
Manning, C. & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McElree, B. (1993). The locus of lexical preference effects in sentence comprehension: A time-course analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(4), pp. 536–571.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. & Müller, S. (2009). Corpora and syntax. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M., eds., Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 920–933.Google Scholar
Montes-Alcalá, C. (2000). Attitudes towards oral and written codeswitching in Spanish–English bilingual youths. In Roca, A., ed., Research on Spanish in the US. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2010). Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 31–103.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. (2001). A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Roland, D. & Jurafsky, D. (2000). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In Stevenson, S. & Merlo, P., eds., CUNY-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 325–345.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Hofmeister, P., & Snider, N. (2007). Processing complexity in subjacency violations: The Complex Noun Phrase Constraint. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. (1973). Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2(2), 83–98.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
Strunk, J. & Snider, N. (2013). Subclausal locality constraints on relative clause extraposition. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M., & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 99–143.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English: An Exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, T. & Arnold, J. (2005). Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115(11), 1481–1496.Google Scholar