Many English adjectives form the comparative in two ways, so that, for instance, prouder occurs alongside more proud. The availability of several forms raises the general questions of when and why speakers choose one variant over the other. The aim of this article is to identify factors of language structure and language use that underlie the comparative alternation and to determine their relative strengths on the basis of data from the BNC through a logistic regression analysis. The results suggest that the alternation is primarily governed by phonological factors, but that syntax and frequency of usage are of importance as well.

In this paper, we introduce a data-driven bottom-up clustering method for the identification of stages in diachronic corpus data that differ from each other quantitatively. Much like regular approaches to hierarchical clustering, it is based on identifying and merging the most cohesive groups of data points, but, unlike regular approaches to clustering, it allows for the merging of temporally adjacent data, thus, in effect, preserving the chronological order. We exemplify the method with two case studies, one on verbal complementation of shall, the other on the development of the perfect in English.

This study addresses the development of the English third-person singular present tense suffix from an interdental fricative (giveth) to an alveolar fricative (gives). Based on the PCEEC corpus, we analyze more than 20,000 examples from the time between 1417 and 1681 to determine (i) the temporal stages in which this development took place and (ii) the factors that are correlated with this change.As for (i), we use a bottom-up clustering method which shows that the shift from -(e)th to -(e)s is best characterized as consisting of five stages. As for (ii), we examine multiple language-internal and language-external factors, including several variables proposed in earlier accounts. We fit a generalized linear mixed-effects model, which allows us to predict nearly 95 per cent of all inflectional choices correctly, thus revealing which factors shaped the development over time in a data-driven and highly precise way.

Within cognitive linguistics, there is an increasing awareness that the study of linguistic phenomena needs to be grounded in usage. Ideally, research in cognitive linguistics should be based on authentic language use, its results should be replicable, and its claims falsifiable. Consequently, more and more studies now turn to corpora as a source of data. While corpus-based methodologies have increased in sophistication, the use of corpus data is also associated with a number of unresolved problems. The study of cognition through off-line linguistic data is arguably indirect, even if such data fulfils desirable qualities such as being natural, representative, and plentiful. Several topics in this context stand out as particularly pressing matters. This discussion note addresses (1) converging evidence from corpora and experimentation, (2) whether corpora mirror psychological reality, (3) the theoretical value of corpus linguistic studies of 'alternations', (4) the relation of corpus ... Document type : Article de périodique (Journal article) Référence bibliographique Arppe, Antti ; Gilquin, Gaëtanelle ; Glynn, Dylan ; Hilpert, Martin ; Zeschel, Arne. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. AbstractWithin cognitive linguistics, there is an increasing awareness that the study of linguistic phenomena needs to be grounded in usage. Ideally, research in cognitive linguistics should be based on authentic language use, its results should be replicable, and its claims falsifiable. Consequently, more and more studies now turn to corpora as a source of data. While corpusbased methodologies have increased in sophistication, the use of corpus data is also associated with a number of unresolved problems. The study of cognition through off-line linguistic data is arguably indirect, even if such data fulfils desirable qualities such as being natural, representative, and plentiful. Several topics in this context stand out as particularly pressing matters. This discussion note addresses (1) converging evidence from corpora and experimentation, (2) whether corpora mirror psychological reality, (3) the theoretical value of corpus linguistic studies of 'alternations', (4) the relation of corpus linguistics and grammaticality judgments, and lastly (5) the nature of explanations in cognitive corpus linguistics. We do not claim to resolve these issues nor cover all possible angles; instead we strongly encourage reactions and further discussion.

No abstract