No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
When complementation gets specific: A study of collocational preferences in verb–object combinations in Norwegian
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2020
Abstract
This study investigates to what extent there are collocational preferences in the verb–object combinations of a large corpus of Norwegian and how important recurrent combinations are in usage. The material has been extracted from a large web-corpus of 700 million tokens and consists of dependency-based verb–object combinations. The overall importance of collocational preferences is demonstrated by the fact that the most frequent 5% of the verb–object combinations account for as much as 64% of the verb–object tokens in the material. The database of verb–object combinations contains measures of collocational strength and thereby allows us to model the mutual strength between the exemplars in the clusters found with individual verbs. Based on some studies of individual verbs and verb pairs, it seems safe to assume that speakers do distinguish between and prefer certain conventional verb–object combinations to other equally grammatical, equally transparent and equally understandable alternatives, and that speakers have access to complementation information at the level of exemplars.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne. 2000. Usage-based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Daugaard, Jan. 2002. On the Valency of Danish Adjectives. Ph.D. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Dunning, Ted E. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2005. The Statistics of Word Cooccurrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2008. Corpora and collocations. In Luüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 1212–1248. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantics-based Accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–55. In The Philological Society (ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis, 1–32. Oxford: The Philological Society. [Reprinted in Palmer (1968), 168–205.]Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Guevara, Emiliano Raul. 2010. NoWaC: A large web-based corpus for Norwegian. In Kilgarriff, Adam & Lin, Dekang (eds.), Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Sixth Web as Corpus Workshop, 1–7. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne. 2013. Adjectival valency as valency constructions: Evidence from Norwegian. Constructions and Frames 4(1), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne. 2015. Polyvalent adjectives: A challenge for theory-driven approaches to valency. Lingua 157, 70–100.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard. 1992. Probleme der Valenz- und Kasustheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Schenkel, Wolfgang. 1973. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Valenz englischer Adjektive und ihrer Nominalisierungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2007. Valency complements or valency patterns? In Herbst, Thomas & Götz-Votteler, Katrin (eds.), Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2010. Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Handl, Susanne (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns, 225–255. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas, Heath, David, Roe, Ian & Götz, Dieter. 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English: A Corpus-based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Hagen, Kristin, Lynum, André & Nøklestad, Anders. 2012. OBT+stat. A combined rule-based and statistical tagger. In Andersen, Gisle (ed.), Exploring Newspaper Language: Using the Web to Create and Investigate a Large Corpus of Modern Norwegian, 51–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, Hall, Johan & Nilsson, Jens. 2006. MaltParser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Gangemi, Aldo, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Odijk, Jan & Tapias, Daniel (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC ’06), 2216–2219. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
OCD2 = Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English
, 2nd edn. 2009. Edited by Colin MacIntosh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. (ed.). 1968. Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Perek, Florian. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Kubczak, Jacqueline, Schmidt, Renate & de Ruiter, Vera. 2004. VALBU – Valenzwörterbuch deutshcer Verben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solberg, Per Erik. 2013. Building gold-standard treebanks for Norwegian. In Oepen, Stephan, Hagen, Kristin, Johannessen, Janne Bondi (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2013), 459–464. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Sommerfeldt, Karl-Ernst & Schreiber, Herbert. 1983. Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Adjektive. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter, Evert, Stefan & Proisl, Thomas. 2018. Collocation candidate extraction from dependency-annotated corpora: Exploring differences across parsers and dependency annotation schemes. In Cantos-Gómez, Pascual & Almela-Sánchez, Moisés (eds.), Lexical Collocation Analysis: Advances and Applications, 111–140. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar