A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances: A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikel

Standard

A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances : A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions. / Jensen, Kim Ebensgaard.

I: Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, Bind 4, 2017, s. 249-272.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikel

Harvard

Jensen, KE 2017, 'A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances: A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions', Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, bind 4, s. 249-272.

APA

Jensen, K. E. (2017). A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances: A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions. Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, 4, 249-272.

Vancouver

Jensen KE. A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances: A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions. Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings. 2017;4:249-272.

Author

Jensen, Kim Ebensgaard. / A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances : A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions. I: Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings. 2017 ; Bind 4. s. 249-272.

Bibtex

@article{3a2465efc84a41bc928d765f421eecd3,
title = "A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances: A usage-based comparative corpus study of two English nominal constructions",
abstract = "In a reference grammar of English for Danish students, Hjulmand & Schwarz (2015: 137) state that, when translating from Danish, “'en hel del' is a good/great deal of in front of uncountable nouns, but a good/great many in front of countable nouns in the plural”.This claim calls for empirical support. With significant distributions of countnouns vs. non-count nouns, a study of COCA suggests that the claim holds up atleast for American English. However, the claim ultimately belongs to what Harder (2015; see also Gregory 1967) calls incomplete accounts. In the perspectiveof usage-based linguistics, such a claim would leave out informationpotentially useful to Danish learners of English. Drawing on principles fromconstruction grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995; Croft 2001) and variationist cognitive sociolinguistics (P{\"u}tz et al. 2014), this paper presents a usage-based comparativecorpus study of the two constructions. Drawing on data from COCA, a distinctivecollexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004) shows that, not only do the constructionsdiffer in terms of preference for count vs. non-count nouns, they also havedifferent preferences for specific individual nouns and semantic classes ofnouns. Moreover, variety-centered multidimensional scaling analyses andheatmaps indicate that the patterns of use of the constructions displayregister variation. In addition, a lexical richness analysis revealsdifferences in constructional productivity.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, corpus linguistics, monolithism, nominal construction, register variation, usage-based construction grammar, cognitive sociolinguistics",
author = "Jensen, {Kim Ebensgaard}",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "249--272",
journal = "Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings",
issn = "2046-9144",
publisher = "The UK Cognitive Linguistics Association",
note = "6th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, UKCLC6 ; Conference date: 18-07-2016 Through 22-07-2016",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A great deal of evidence based on a great many instances

T2 - 6th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference

AU - Jensen, Kim Ebensgaard

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - In a reference grammar of English for Danish students, Hjulmand & Schwarz (2015: 137) state that, when translating from Danish, “'en hel del' is a good/great deal of in front of uncountable nouns, but a good/great many in front of countable nouns in the plural”.This claim calls for empirical support. With significant distributions of countnouns vs. non-count nouns, a study of COCA suggests that the claim holds up atleast for American English. However, the claim ultimately belongs to what Harder (2015; see also Gregory 1967) calls incomplete accounts. In the perspectiveof usage-based linguistics, such a claim would leave out informationpotentially useful to Danish learners of English. Drawing on principles fromconstruction grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995; Croft 2001) and variationist cognitive sociolinguistics (Pütz et al. 2014), this paper presents a usage-based comparativecorpus study of the two constructions. Drawing on data from COCA, a distinctivecollexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004) shows that, not only do the constructionsdiffer in terms of preference for count vs. non-count nouns, they also havedifferent preferences for specific individual nouns and semantic classes ofnouns. Moreover, variety-centered multidimensional scaling analyses andheatmaps indicate that the patterns of use of the constructions displayregister variation. In addition, a lexical richness analysis revealsdifferences in constructional productivity.

AB - In a reference grammar of English for Danish students, Hjulmand & Schwarz (2015: 137) state that, when translating from Danish, “'en hel del' is a good/great deal of in front of uncountable nouns, but a good/great many in front of countable nouns in the plural”.This claim calls for empirical support. With significant distributions of countnouns vs. non-count nouns, a study of COCA suggests that the claim holds up atleast for American English. However, the claim ultimately belongs to what Harder (2015; see also Gregory 1967) calls incomplete accounts. In the perspectiveof usage-based linguistics, such a claim would leave out informationpotentially useful to Danish learners of English. Drawing on principles fromconstruction grammar (e.g. Goldberg 1995; Croft 2001) and variationist cognitive sociolinguistics (Pütz et al. 2014), this paper presents a usage-based comparativecorpus study of the two constructions. Drawing on data from COCA, a distinctivecollexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004) shows that, not only do the constructionsdiffer in terms of preference for count vs. non-count nouns, they also havedifferent preferences for specific individual nouns and semantic classes ofnouns. Moreover, variety-centered multidimensional scaling analyses andheatmaps indicate that the patterns of use of the constructions displayregister variation. In addition, a lexical richness analysis revealsdifferences in constructional productivity.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - corpus linguistics

KW - monolithism

KW - nominal construction

KW - register variation

KW - usage-based construction grammar

KW - cognitive sociolinguistics

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 249

EP - 272

JO - Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings

JF - Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings

SN - 2046-9144

Y2 - 18 July 2016 through 22 July 2016

ER -

ID: 173780667