Corpus and Experimental Data as Corroborating Evidence: The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives University of Tübingen, 02.02.-04.02.2006 Thomas Hoffmann (University of Regensburg)
37
Embed
Corpus and Experimental Data as Corroborating Evidence: The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Corpus and Experimental Data as Corroborating Evidence:The Case of Preposition Placement in English Relative Clauses
Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives University of Tübingen, 02.02.-04.02.2006
Thomas Hoffmann
(University of Regensburg)
1. Introduction: Corpus vs. Introspection
We do not need to use intuition in justifying our grammars, and as scientists, we must not use intuition in this way. (Sampson 2001: 135)
You don’t take a corpus, you ask questions. […] You can take as many texts as you like, you can take tape recordings, but you’ll never get the answer. (Chomsky in Aarts 2000: 5-6)
Which type of data are we left with then?
1. Introduction: Corpus vs. Introspection
A corpus and an introspection-based approach to linguistics […] can be gainfully viewed as being complementary.
(McEnery and Wilson 1996: 16)
corpus and introspection data = corroborating evidence
case study: P placement in English Relative clauses
1. Introduction: What to Expect
1. corpora vs. introspection?
2. categorical corpus data (ICE-GB corpus)
3. Magnitude Estimation experiment
4. variable corpus data (ICE-GB corpus)
5. conclusion
2. Corpora and Introspection
Arguments against corpus data:
• “performance” problem:
• “negative data” problem:
• “homogeneity” problem:
“only use introspection”
2. Corpora and Introspection
Arguments against corpus data: no corpus
• “performance” problem: yet: performance result of competence
modern corpora representative
• “negative data” problem: yet: only additional (different) data needed
• “homogeneity” problem:yet: empirical claim that needs to be investigated
use corpora + additional data type
2. Corpora and Introspection
Arguments against introspection data:
• “unnatural data” problem:
• “irrefutable data” problem:
• “illusion” problem:
• “stability” problem:
“only use corpora”
2. Corpora and Introspection
Arguments against introspection data: no introspection
• “unnatural data” problem:yet: only additional (context) data needed
• “irrefutable data”:yet: depends only on collection method
• “illusion” problem: yet: only additional (natural) data needed
• “stability” problem: yet: empirical claim that needs to be investigated
use corpora + additional data type
2. Corpora and Introspection
Corpora and introspection are corroborating evidence:
= weaknesses of corpus data
= weaknesses of introspection data
+ ungrammaticality+ unexpected patterns
+ negative data+ contextual factors
+ rare phenomena+ natural language
introspectioncorpus
3. Case Study: Preposition Placement
I want a data source ...
(1) a. which I can rely on [stranded preposition]
b. on which I can rely [pied-piped preposition]
driving question:data source for empirical analysis of (1a,b)?
4. Empirical Study I: Corpus Data
• Corpus used:
International Corpus of English ICE-GB (Nelson et al. 2002)(educated Present-day BE, written & spoken)
• Analysis tool:
GOLDVARB computer programme (logistic regression; Robinson et al. 2001) relative influence of various contextual factors (weights: <0.5 = inhibiting factors; >0.5 = favouring)
Pstrand/pied-piped token tested for
1. finiteness
2. restrictiveness
3. relativizer
4. XP contained in (V / N, e.g. entrance to sth. / Adj, e.g. afraid of sth.)
(6) And uhm he left me there with this packet of Durex which I hadn't got a clue what to do **[with]** to be totally honest <ICE-GB:S1B-049 #167:1:B>
reasons for restrictiveness effect:
1. weaker semantic ties of non-restrictive clause with antecedent (pause/comma)
2. Pied-piped P receives connective function
functionalisation of preposition placement in WH-relative clause
7. Empirical Study III: Corpus Data II
corpus and introspection data = corroborating evidence:
corpora:frequency/context effects (e.g. level of formality)unexpected patterns (e.g. restrictiveness)categorical data require further investigation
introspection: differentiation of
accidental gaps (WH+P with PPTemp/Loc)systematic gaps (X+P with PPMan/Deg)detection of degrees of ungrammaticality
8. Conclusion
9. References
Aarts, B. 2000. "Corpus linguistics, Chomsky and Fuzzy Tree Fragments". In Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt, eds. 2000. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 5-13.
Bard, E.G. et al. 1996. “Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic acceptability”. Language 72:32-68.
Bergh, G. & A. Seppänen. 2000. “Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey”. English Language and Linguistics 4:295-316.
Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huddleston, R. et al. 2002. “Relative constructions and unbound dependencies”. In: G.K. Pullum & R. Huddleston, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1031-1096.
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levine, R. & I.A. Sag. 2003. “WH-Nonmovement”. <http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~sag>, 04.07.2004.
9. References
Nelson, G. et al. 2002. Exploring Natural Language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
McEnery, T. and A. Wilson. 1997. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Pesetsky, D. 1998. “Some principles of sentence production”. In: Pilar Barbosa et al., eds. Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 337-83.
Penke, M. & A. Rosenbach. 2004. "What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introduction". Studies in Language 28,3: 480-526.
Pickering, M. & G. Barry. 1991. “Sentence processing without empty categories”. Language and Cognitive Processes 6:229-259.
Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Robinson, J. et al. 2001. “GOLDVARB 2001: A Multivariate Analysis Application for Windows”. <http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb/manualOct2001>
9. References
Sag, I.A. 1997. “English relative constructions”. Journal of Linguistics 33:431-484.
Sampson, G. 2001. Empirical Linguistics. London, New York: Continuum.
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgements and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sorace, Antonella and Frank Keller. 2005. "Gradience in linguistic data". Lingua 115,11: 1497-1525.
Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, GA: Rodopi.
Van der Auwera, J. 1985. “Relative that — a centennial dispute”. Journal of Linguistics 21:149-179.