Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:28:24.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light verb semantics in the International Corpus of English: onomasiological variation, identity evidence and degrees of lightness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2017

SETH MEHL
SETH MEHL*
Affiliation:
School of English, University of Sheffield, Jessop West, 1 Upper Hanover Street, Sheffield S3 7RA, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study employs corpus semantic techniques to examine the semantics of light verbs and light verb constructions (LVCs) in Singapore English, Hong Kong English and British English via their respective components in the International Corpus of English (ICE; Greenbaum 1996). The study investigates onomasiological variation (see Geeraerts et al.1994) by identifying selection preferences in natural use between light verb constructions and their related verb alternatives. In addition, identity evidence is forwarded as a valuable corpus semantic tool, in which instances of naturally occurring language data resemble classic identity tests for polysemy. Via a close reading and manual semantic analysis of thousands of instances of light make, take, give and their semantic alternatives, this study finds remarkable consistency across the three varieties of World Englishes (WEs) in onomasiological preferences, even in extremely nuanced features of LVCs. Onomasiological evidence and identity evidence also suggest the new finding that the three light verbs and their constructions exhibit degrees of lightness, and that these degrees of lightness are extremely consistent across regional varieties.

Keywords

corpus linguisticssemanticslight verbsWorld Englishesonomasiology
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 55 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 1995. Having a look at the expanded predicate. In Aarts, Bas & Meyer, Charles (eds.), The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J. 2002. Stretched verb constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. 2014. AntConc (version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. www.laurenceanthony.net (accessed 1 September 2015).Google Scholar
Balasubramanian, Chandrika. 2009. Circumstance adverbials in registers of Indian English. World Englishes 28 (4), 485–508.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences 23, 551–78.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Amberber, Mengistu, Baker, Brett & Harvey, Mark (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Lahiri, Aditi. 2013. Diachronic pertinacity of light verbs. Lingua 135, 7–29.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 2004. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). corpus.byu.edu/glowbe (accessed 14 April 2017).Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2005. She gave him a look, they both had a laugh and then took a stroll: give a verb, have a verb and take a verb constructions. In Dixon, Robert M. W. (ed.), A semantic approach to English grammar, 459–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2002. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Family, Neiloufar. 2011. Mapping semantic spaces: A constructionist account of the ‘light verb’ eat in Persian. Folia Linguistica 45 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1964 [1930]. Speech. In Strevens, P. (ed.), ‘The tongues of men’ and ‘Speech’. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006 [1993]. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. In Geeraerts, Dirk, Words and other wonders, 99–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Bakema, Peter. 1994. The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan. 2014. Polysemy and synonymy: Cognitive theory and corpus method. In Glynn, Dylan & Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 7–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. Introducing ICE. In Greenbaum, Sidney (ed.), Comparing English worldwide: The International Corpus of English, 3–12. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Haase, Christoph. 2004. Conceptualization specifics in East African English: Quantitative arguments from the ICE-East Africa corpus. World Englishes 23 (2), 261–8.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 2002 [1961]. Categories of the theory of grammar. In Webster, J. (ed.), On grammar, 37–94. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hempl, George. 1902. Stovepipes and funnels. Dialect Notes 2, 250–6.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Hundt, Marianne & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2011. Indian English an emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia Journal of English Philology 129 (3-4), 258–80.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ICE: International Corpus of English. http://ice-corpora.net/ice/ (accessed 1 June 2011).Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, part VI: Morphology. London: Bradford and Dickens.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, Randolph & Widdowson, H. G. (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2013. Introduction. Lingua 135, 1–6.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1977. Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans, Hansen, Marcus L., Bloch, Bernard & Bloch, Julia. 1939. Handbook of the linguistic geography of New England. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nick. 2009. Change in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mehl, Seth. 2013. Thinking linguistically about Keywords: Polysemy, semantic change, and divergent identities. The Keywords Project. http://keywords.pitt.edu/pdfs/thinking_linguistically_about_keywords.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G., Aarts, Bas & Wallis, S. A.. 2002. Exploring natural language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1981. Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1926. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ronan, Patricia & Schneider, Gerold. 2015. Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20 (3), 326–54.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 1994. How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in World Englishes. World Englishes 23, 227–49.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2009. Light verbs in Australian, New Zealand and British English. In Peters, Pam, Collins, Peter & Smith, Adam (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, 139–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–43.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2001. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wallis, S. A. 2009. Binomial confidence intervals and contingency tests: Mathematical fundamentals and the evaluation of alternative methods. London: UCL Survey of English Usage. www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/staff/sean/resources/binomialpoisson.pdf (accessed 1 November 2016).Google Scholar
Wallis, S. A. 2012. That vexed problem of choice: Reflections on experimental design and statistics with corpora. London: UCL Survey of English Usage. www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/staff/sean/resources/vexedchoice.pdf (accessed 1 November 2016).Google Scholar
Werner, Janina & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2012. Highly polysemous verbs in New Englishes: A corpus-based pilot study of Indian English and Sri Lankan English. In Hoffmann, Sebastian (ed.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 249–66. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren & Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2008. Loan verbs in a typological perspective. In Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dik & Palomo, Rosa Salas (eds.), Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, 89–121. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter,.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink but you can't *have an eat? Language 58 (4), 753–99.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Saddock, Jerrold M.. 1975. Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 4, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar