Cover not available

In:English Noun Phrases from a Functional-Cognitive Perspective: Current issues
Edited by Lotte Sommerer and Evelien Keizer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 221] 2022
► pp. 311–362

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Time-measurement constructions in English

A corpus-based exploration

 | Anglia Ruskin University
 | University of Córdoba
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.221.09bel
Abstract
Time-measurement expressions such as five-year plan, 10 years’ time and 25 years service occur frequently in English. All such expressions consist of a cardinal numeral, followed by a time-noun (N1) then a second noun (N2). The time-noun has one of three orthographic forms: the bare-form, the S-form with apostrophe or the S-form without apostrophe. Using a dataset of 17,591 time-measurement tokens from the British National Corpus and mixed-effects logistic regression modelling, this chapter tests the hypothesis that these three orthographic forms represent three different constructions. Our first model, using only expressions with S-form N1, shows that the presence or absence of an apostrophe is not correlated with any other formal or semantic property that would justify the recognition of two constructions. In contrast, our second model using the whole dataset, shows that bare-form N1 and S-form N1 (with or without apostrophe) are highly correlated with aspects of both form and meaning. In our dataset, 96% of tokens with bare-form N1 have a countable N2 and 87% also follow a determiner. Conversely, 94% of tokens with S-form N1 have an uncountable N2, and 91% also lack a determiner. We conclude that these clusters of properties represent distinct pairings of form and meaning, and are therefore characteristic of two different constructions, which we call the time-measurement compound construction and the time-measurement construction respectively. The time-measurement compound construction (five-year plan) has the distribution of a nominal; semantically, it denotes a kind of bounded entity (N2) with some relation to numeral-N1, usually duration. The time-measurement construction (10 years’ time, 25 years service) has the distribution of a noun phrase; semantically, it denotes a quantity (numeral-N1) of some unbounded entity (N2). The chapter ends with a qualitative exploration of the central and more peripheral representatives of the two constructions, including borderline cases.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Construction Grammar
    • 2.2The S-genitive construction
    • 2.3The measure noun pseudo-partitive construction
    • 2.4The phrasal compound construction
    • 2.5The measurement as modifier construction
    • 2.6Interim summary
  • 3.Creating a database
    • 3.1Selecting examples
    • 3.2Metatextual categories
    • 3.3Orthography
    • 3.4Morphosyntax
    • 3.5Length
    • 3.6Frequency
    • 3.7Semantics
  • 4.Model 1: Apostrophe use with S-form N1
    • 4.1Methodology
    • 4.2Results and discussion
  • 5.Model 2: Use of the S-form
    • 5.1Methodology
    • 5.2Results and discussion
  • 6.Characteristics of the two constructions
    • 6.1Overview
    • 6.2Central exemplars
    • 6.3Variation in the time-measurement compound construction
    • 6.4Variation in the time-measurement construction
    • 6.5Time-measurement phrasal compounds and ambiguous types
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (44)
References
Akaike, Hirotugu. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19(6): 716–723. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Davidson, Douglas J. & Bates, Douglas M. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4): 390–412. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Piepenbrock, Richard & Guilkers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R. & Shafaei-Bajestan, Elnaz. 2019. languageR: Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. R package version 1.5.0. <[URL]>.
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, Melanie J. 2012. The English noun-noun construct: A morphological and syntactic object. In Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8) Cagliari, 14–17 September 2011, Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise & Athanasios Karasimos (eds), 59–91. <[URL]> (2 July 2021).
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Stekauer (eds), 201–216. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 49–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cambridge University Press. 1999. Cambridge Dictionary Online <[URL]> (4 June 2021)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan D. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Falco, Michelangelo & Zamparelli, Roberto. 2019. Partitives and partitivity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Lee-Goldman, Russell R. & Rhodes, Russell. 2012. The framenet constructicon. In Sign-based Construction Grammar, Hans Christian Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds), 309–372. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4): 327–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Smith, Nicholas, Lee, David & Berglund-Prytz, Ylva. 2008. Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide. English Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 6. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Construction Grammar: Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 1–13. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41: 9–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14(2): 305–354. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2007. The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1995. Possession and possessive constructions. In Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. John Taylor & Robert MacLaury (eds), 51–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Jing, Hacohen, Aviya & Schaeffer, Jeannette. 2018. The interpretation of the mass-count distinction across languages and populations: Introduction. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 70. 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, 2 Vols. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 323–524. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5(4): 451–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Lohmann, Arne, Ben Hedia, Sonia & Zimmermann, Julia. 2020. An s is an ’s, or is it? plural and genitive plural are not homophonous. Complex Words: Advances in Morphology: 260–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolf, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (2 July 2021).
Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. Descriptive genitives in English: A case study on constructional gradience. English Language and Linguistics 10(1): 77–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 1998. Possession and partition: The two genitives of English. Hamburg: Seminar für Englische Sprache und Kultur.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical variation. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Gunter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 55–173. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989. Possessive genitives in English. Linguistics 27: 663–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
University of Oxford. 2016. The University of Oxford Style Guide. <[URL]> (27 May 2021)
Vos, Riet. 1999. A Grammar of Partitive Constructions. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Muñoz, Carmen Portero
2022. Forty years of metonymy. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue