What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions?: Corpus data in usage-based linguistics

Gries, Stefan Th.

doi:10.1075/hcp.32.15gri

In:Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and Expansion
Edited by Mario Brdar, Stefan Th. Gries and Milena Žic Fuchs
[Human Cognitive Processing 32] 2011
► pp. 237–256

Get fulltext from our e-platform

Download Book PDF

Corpus data in usage-based linguistics

What’s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions?

Stefan Th. Gries | University of California, Santa Barbara

Published online: 10 November 2011

https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.32.15gri

The use of corpus data in cognitive linguistics brings with it a host of methodological problems. One concerns the degree of granularity that provides the most insightful results. The present study investigates two granularity issues – different inflectional forms and (register-)based corpus parts. First, I compare the results of a lemma-based corpus analysis of an English argument structure construction to an inflectional-form-based corpus analysis to determine whether the two approaches result in different suggestions concerning the semantics of the construction at issue. Second, I outline how to determine whether data from different corpus parts/registers result in different semantic generalizations of the same construction and how relevant corpus distinctions can be determined in an objective bottom-up manner.

Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Order by:

Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff

2025. Introduction to the special issue on collostructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21:3 ► pp. 465 ff.

Horsch, Jakob

2023. From Corpus Data to Constructional Networks: Analyzing Language with the Usage-Based Construction Grammar Framework. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 74:3 ► pp. 701 ff.

KAMBARA, Kazuho & Tsukasa YAMANAKA

2023. <i>Philosophy of Data Science for Corpus Linguistics:</i>. Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science 32:0 ► pp. 47 ff.

Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann

2023. Constructionist Approaches,

ZAHLER, SARA

2023. Some Issues in Usage‐Based Methods. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 73 ff.

Dantec, M., H. Allain, N. Yvert, J. Sigrist, M. Bensafi & J. Lafraire

2022. Olfactory attributes and colors associated with naturalness. Food Quality and Preference 98 ► pp. 104495 ff.

Gries, Stefan Th.

2022. Toward more careful corpus statistics: uncertainty estimates for frequencies, dispersions, association measures, and more. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 100002 ff.

Kormacheva, Daria

2019. Choosing Between Lexeme vs. Token in Russian Collocations. Scando-Slavica 65:1 ► pp. 77 ff.

Raineri, Sophie & Camille Debras

2019. Corpora and Representativeness: Where to go from now?. CogniTextes 19:Volume 19

Reali, Florencia

2017. Acceptability of Dative Argument Structure in Spanish: Assessing Semantic and Usage‐Based Factors. Cognitive Science 41:8 ► pp. 2170 ff.

Bruckmaier, Elisabeth

2016. Dialect contact influences on the use of GET and the GET-passive. In New Approaches to English Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series, 177], ► pp. 117 ff.

Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors

2015. EFL and/vs. ESL?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1:1 ► pp. 130 ff.

[no author supplied]

2014. Exploring Functional-Cognitive Space [Studies in Language Companion Series, 157],

[no author supplied]

2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286],

[no author supplied]

2020. Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28],

[no author supplied]

2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35],

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.