Article published In: Constructions in Applied Linguistics
Edited by Susan Hunston and Florent Perek
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3] 2019
► pp. 385–412
15 years of collostructions
Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures)
Published online: 27 August 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri
Abstract
This paper discusses a variety of potential shortcomings of most of the most widely-used association measures as
used in collocation research and collostructional analyses. To address these shortcomings, I then discuss a research program
called tupleization, an approach that does away with the usual kinds of information conflation by keeping
relevant corpus-linguistic dimensions of information – e.g. frequency, association/contingency, dispersion, entropy, etc. –
separate and analyzing them in a multidimensional way; I conclude with pointers towards how these dimensions could, if deemed
absolutely necessary, be conflated for the simplest kinds of of rankings as well as strategies for future research.
Keywords: collostructional analysis, tupleization
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Problems of association measures and towards the solution of tupleization
- 2.1AMs and the conflation of frequency and effect size of association/contingency
- 2.2AMs and type frequencies/distributions
- 2.3Directionality of AMs
- 2.4Underdispersion of co-occurrence data
- 2.5Against conflation, towards tupleization
- 3.Case studies of tupleization
- 3.1A collexeme analysis of the ditransitive
- 3.1.1A “traditional” collexeme analysis: 1-tuples
- 3.1.2Separating frequency and association/contingency: 2-tuples
- 3.1.3Adding dispersion to frequency and association: 3-tuples
- 3.1.4Distinguishing directions of association: 4-tuples
- 3.2A collexeme analysis of the imperative
- 3.3A distinctive-collexeme analysis of transitive phrasal verbs
- 3.4A brief discussion of type-token distributions and entropies
- 3.1A collexeme analysis of the ditransitive
- 4.Discussion and conclusion
- 4.1Interim summary
- 4.1.1What does G2 (or pFYE) actually do?
- 4.1.2What if one really needs a one-dimensional ranking?
- 4.2Where to go from here
- 4.1Interim summary
References
References (46)
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science,
19
(9), 814–823.
Ambridge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development,
21
(2), 174–193.
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M. (2011). An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative
learning. Psychological Review,
118
(3), 438–482.
Bernolet, S., & Colleman, T. (2016). Sense-based and lexeme-based alternation biases in the Dutch dative alternation. In J. Yoon & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar (pp. 165–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,
15
1, 17–29.
Davies, M. & Gardner, D. (2010). A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English: Word sketches, collocates and thematic lists. London & New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Deshors, S. C. (2016).
Multidimensional Perspectives on Interlanguage: Exploring May and Can
Across Learner Corpora
. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.
Ellis, N. (2011). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics,
27
(1), 1–24.
Ellis, N., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. (2016). Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus investigations of Construction
Grammar. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–55. Reprinted in F. R. Palmer (Ed.), (1968). Selected Papers of J.R. Firth 1952–1959. London: Longman.
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics,
35
(3), 305–327.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. Th. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
34
(4), 365–399.
(2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
13
(4). 403–437.
(2012). Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: some necessary
clarifications. Studies in Language,
36
(3), 477–510.
(2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
18
(1), 137–165.
(2015). More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff
(2013). Cognitive Linguistics,
26
(3), 505–536.
Gries, Stefan Th. (forthcoming). Analyzing dispersion. In M. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. Berlin & New York, NY: Springer.
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and
constructions. Cognitive Linguistics,
16
(4), 635–676.
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004a). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
9
(1), 97–129.
(2004b). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,
3
1, 182–200.
(2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics,
7
1, 163–186.
Gyselinck, E. (2018). The Role of Expressivity and Productivity in (Re)Shaping the Constructional Network (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ghent, Ghent.
Hilpert, M. (2012a). Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In K. Allan & J. Robynson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics (pp. 133–160). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2012b). Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. Closs Traugott (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (pp. 233–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (1999). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Jaeger, T. F. & Snider, N. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In B. Love, K. McRae & V. Sloutsky (Eds). Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference (pp. 1061–1066). Washington, DC: Cognitive Science Society.
Lester, N. A. (2017). The Syntactic Bits of Nouns: How Prior Syntactic Distributions Affect Comprehension, Production, and Acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
Lester, N. A. & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2016). Syntactic flexibility in the noun: Evidence from picture naming. Paper presented at the CogSci 2016 conference, Philadelphia, USA.
Lester, N. A., Feldman, L. B., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2017). You can take a noun out of syntax …: Syntactic similarity effects in lexical priming. Paper presented at the CogSci 2017 conference, London, UK.
Lin, J. H. (1991). Divergence measures based on the Shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
37
(1), 145–151.
Linzen, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science,
40
(6), 1382–1411.
Matthys, J. (2014). Collostructional Transfer in the Dative Alternation: An Experimental Study on the Transfer of the Dative Constructions’
Verb Biases by Flemish EFL Learners (Unpublished masters dissertation). University of Ghent, Ghent.
Milin, P., Filipović-Đurđević, D., & Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. (2009). The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from
Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language,
60
(1), 50–64.
Roland, D., Elman, J., & Dick, F. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language,
57
(3), 348–379.
Schmid, H. J. (2010). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, H. J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical
problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics,
24
(3), 531–577.
Schmid, H. J. & Ungerer, F. (2011). Cognitive linguistics. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 611–624). London: Routledge.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,
8
(2). 209–243.
Cited by (51)
Cited by 51 other publications
Basile, Rodolfo
De Los Reyes, Nicole C. & Ute Römer-Barron
Divjak, Dagmar
Elghamry Sabae, Ola & Olivier Kraif
Flach, Susanne
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Stefan Th Gries
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff
Kraif, Olivier, Iva Novakova & Julie Sorba
Liao, Shengyu, Stefan Th. Gries & Stefanie Wulff
Newman, John
Novakova, Iva, Olivier Kraif & Marion Gymnich
2025. Exploring the ‘language of intimacy’ in English and French romance novels by means of a corpus-driven
approach. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Olguin Martinez, Jesus & Stefan Th. Gries
2025. The similative-pretence alternating pair and filler-slot relations. Constructions and Frames 17:1 ► pp. 65 ff.
Qian, Yubin & Nan Wu
Shadrova, Anna
Sommerer, Lotte & Eva Zehentner
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana
Zehentner, Eva
Gries, Stefan Th., Brian G. Slocum & Kevin Tobia
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
Hartmann, Stefan & Alexander Willich
Hoang, Hien & Peter Crosthwaite
Tang, Xuri & Huifang Ye
Zhang, Zhuo, Meichun Liu & Jinmeng Dou
GRIES, STEFAN T.
Gries, Stefan T.
Huang, Ming
Pedersen, Johan
2023. Danish verb prefixes and the schematizing transitive prefix
construction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 212 ff.
Van Hoey, Thomas
Wyroślak, Piotr
Le Foll, Elen
2022. “I’m putting some salt in my sandwich”.. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 93 ff.
Wang, Jiaojiao & Jiangping Zhou
Wang, Zhong, Weiwei Fan & Alex Chengyu Fang
Bosque, Ignacio
Gries, Stefan Th.
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. What do (most of) our dispersion measures measure (most)? Dispersion?. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:2 ► pp. 171 ff.
Gries, Stefan Th.
Gries, Stefan Th.
2022. What do (some of) our association measures measure (most)? Association?. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Th. Gries, Stefan
Shadrova, Anna, Pia Linscheid, Julia Lukassek, Anke Lüdeling & Sarah Schneider
Tang, Xuri
Thompson, Arthur Lewis, Thomas Van Hoey & Youngah Do
Gries, Stefan Th. & Philip Durrant
Kulchytskyy, Ihor
Lampert, Günther
2020.
How and why seem became an evidential. In Re-assessing Modalising Expressions [Studies in Language Companion Series, 216], ► pp. 109 ff.
Rastelli, Stefano
Rastelli, Stefano
Rastelli, Stefano
Wiesinger, Evelyn
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 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.
