In:Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Benjamins Current Topics 119] 2021
► pp. 29–51
Massive corpora and models of cross‑cultural communication styles in Cognitive Linguistics
The case of the N1 V (for) N2 to-infinitive construction in English
Published online: 16 August 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.119.03pav
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.119.03pav
Abstract
The paper addresses a pair of construction variants: the N1 V for N2
to-infinitive construction and its version without for, in the cases when both are possible with
the same main verb (I need for him to leave / I need you to stop). It aims
to point to the importance of the use of massive e-corpora in gaining better insight into the given construction pair. It also
aims to test the hypothesis that the obtained quantitative data from such corpora can at least partially be accounted for by the
interplay of: (1) the differences in the semantics of the two construction variants (based on combining relevant
cognitive-linguistic insights), (2) the differences in the lexical semantics of the main verbs, and (3) extra-linguistic factors
dealt with by models of cross-cultural communication styles. The paper thus argues for a tighter integration of
cognitive-linguistic insights and a social-interactional perspective on language phenomena.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Models of inter-cultural and cross-cultural communication styles
- 3.The method and the corpus
- 4.Data and discussion
- 5.Conclusions
Acknowledgements References
References (35)
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive science (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cuyckens, H., & De Smet, H. (2007).
For…to-infinitives from Early to Late Modern English. In J. Pérez-Guerra, D. González-Álvarez, J. L. Bueno-Alonso, & E. Rama-Martínez (Eds.), ‘Of varying language and opposing creed’: New insights into Late Modern English (pp. 77–102). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Davies, M. (2012). Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157.
(2013). Recent shifts with three non-finite verbal complements in English: Data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s–2000s). In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 46–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, M., & Fuchs, R. (2015). Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9-billion-word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide, 36(1), 1–28.
De Smet, H. (2007).
For…to-infinitives as verbal complements in Late Modern and Present-Day English: Between motivation and change. English Studies, 88, 67–94.
Fanego, T. (2007). Drift and the development of sentential complements in British and American English from 1700 to the present day. Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication, 28, 161–235.
Fischer, O. (2000). Grammaticalisation: unidirectional, non-reversible?: The case of to before the infinitive in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics and language variation. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 202–217). London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gries, S. T. (2001). A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 33–50.
(2002). The influence of processing on grammatical variation: Particle placement in English. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre, & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp. 269–288). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London/New York: Continuum Press.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 225–36). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Grondelaers, S. (2008). National variation in the use of er ‘there’: Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 153–203). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 457–475). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollmann, W. B. (2013). Constructions in cognitive sociolinguistics. In T. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 491–509). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ivorra Pérez, F. M. (2014). Cultural values and digital discourse: An intercultural communication approach to the transactional discourse of Spanish and US sales websites. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 36, 50–76.
(2006) [1996]. When cultures collide: Managing successfully across cultures (revised edition.) London: Nicholas Brealey.
McFadden, T. (2008). Overt subjects of infinitives and for-to in the history of English. Paper presented at the 10th Diachronic Generative Syntax Conference. Cornell University, 7 August 2008. Retrieved from: [URL] in August 2016.
Nishimura, S., Nevgi, A., & Tella, S. (2008). Communication style and cultural features in high/low context communication cultures: A case study of Finland, Japan and India. In A. Kallioniemi (Ed.), Renovating and developing subject didactics: Proceedings of a subject-didactic symposium in Helsinki on Feb. 2, 2008 (pp. 783–796). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Piller, I. (2007). Linguistics and intercultural communication. Language and Linguistic Compass, 1(3), 208–226.
Prykarpatska, I. (2008). Why are you late? Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21, 87–102.
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337.
Wagner, S. (2000). Depends how long you want for it to take: For/to clauses in present-day spoken British English. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 25(2), 191–211.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2007). Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K. M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar (pp. 265–81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.