A great many things and a great deal of stuff: A
synchronic and diachronic corpus study of two
nominal constructions in American English
Academic Day 2015
English Department, Aalborg University
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Introduction
• "When translating from Danish, note than [sic.] 'en hel del' is a
good/great deal of in front of uncountable nouns, but a good/great
many in front of countable nouns in the plural: We spent a great deal
of time on the project. I have a great many friends in London."
(Hjulmand & Schwarz 2008: 126)
• This reflects a general assumption in English grammar that A
GREAT DEAL OF is a non-countable nominal construction and A
GREAT MANY is a countable nominal construction.
• We can treat this as a hypothesis about the two constructions, which
we can empirically test in a number of ways and thus learn more
about the two constructions.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Introduction
•
•
A quick overview of the two constructions
Synchronic study:
•
•
Data
Analyses:
• Testing the overall hypothesis
• Distribution of nouns in the two constructions
• Cross-register/domain variation
• Comparison of constructional productivity
•
Diachronic study:
•
•
Data
Analyses:
• Overall distribution of the two constructions over time
• Tracking micro-changes using motion charts
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
A quick overview of
the two constructions
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
The basics
• They're both nominal constructions and their
propositional act function is that of reference
(Croft 2003: 184-188)
• They're both intensifying quantifying nominal
constructions in that they construe a large
quantity and then intensify it, making it appear
even larger or perhaps more dramatic.
• They can be described using terminology from
cognitive semantics (Talmy 2000).
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
A GREAT MANY
• A GREAT MANY construes a plurality of
individuated entities and then intensifies this
multiplex.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
A GREAT DEAL OF
• A GREAT DEAL OF construes a large portion of a mass
that is not internally bounded (that is it does not consist
of individuated units) and intensifies it.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
A GREAT MANY vs. A GREAT
DEAL OF
• There were a great many people on the bus.
• They bought a great deal of oil from us last year.
• I ate a great many cakes. vs. I ate a great deal
of cake.
• We saw a great many goats on the road. vs. We
saw a great deal of goat on the road.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Synchronic study
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Data
• Corpus of Contemporary American English
(COCA):
• 464,020,256 words
• 1990-2012
• Domains/registers:
•
•
•
•
•
Spoken (SPOK)
Fiction (FICT)
Magazines (MAG)
Newspapers (NEWS)
Academic writing (ACAD)
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Testing the hypothesis
•
A GREAT MANY is used with count nouns, and A GREAT DEAL OF is used
with mass nouns / non-count nouns
•
H1: If A GREAT MANY is used, then the noun will be a count noun more often than a
non-count noun; if A GREAT DEAL OF is used, then the noun will be a non-count noun
more often than a count noun; in A GREAT MANY, the noun will be a count noun more
often than the noun in A GREAT DEAL OF, and in A GREAT DEAL OF, the noun will be
a non-count noun more often than in A GREAT MANY.
•
H0: If A GREAT MANY is used, then the noun will not be a count noun more often than
a non-count noun; if A GREAT DEAL OF is used, then the noun will not be a non-count
noun more often than a count noun; in A GREAT MANY, the noun will not be a count
noun more often than the noun in A GREAT DEAL OF, and in A GREAT DEAL OF, the
Distribution of number categories in A GREAT DEAL OF
Distribution of number categories in A GREAT MANY
noun will not be a non-count noun more often than the noun in A GREAT MANY.
See Gries(2009:
10-14) for
more
in quantitative linguistics.
Fisher-Yates
Exact
teston
forhypotheses
statistical significance
A GREAT MANY: p < 0.05
Overall distribution of the two constructions
A GREAT DEAL OF: p < 0.05
All four values: p < 0.05
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Distinctive collexeme analysis of the two constructions
Distribution of nouns in the two
constructions
Top 22 nouns that appear in A GREAT DEAL OF
Top 22 nouns that appear in A GREAT MANY
Noun
Collostruction strength
Noun
Collostruction strength
118.5043687403
THING
363.1242932785
MONEY
59.0486731889
AMERICAN
125.2856827484
ATTENTION
52.8487143307
MAN
62.4075095355
WORK
32.2853728292
OTHER
53.4635632065
INFORMATION
31.8159203885
WOMAN
53.4635632065
POWER
10.6083475689
JEW
17.7832578285
INTEREST
10.4917978957
NATION
17.7832578285
SENSE
10.3769393344
POLITICIAN
17.7832578285
EXPERIENCE
10.2875346293
SCHOLAR
17.7832578285
INFLUENCE
9.9142289259
BED
13.3339031203
THOUGHT
9.6773512305
BOAT
13.3339031203
TIME
RESPECT
25.0251644734
WAY
33.7911791392
• Distinctive
collexeme
analysis:
a subtype
of
EFFORT
20.5925037319
QUESTION
31.1648732103
collostructional
analysis (Stefanowitsch
& Gries 2003),
RESEARCH
18.9626834735
BOOK
26.6890685663
which
allows one
to identify,
in a set of 26.6890685663
two or more
PAIN
16.4050762192
ISSUE
constructions,
which construction
a word
prefers and
CONCERN
16.1727805282
REPUBLICAN
26.6890685663
howSUPPORT
much it prefers
to the 22.2349784833
other
15.7082960224 it compared
FACTOR
EVIDENCE
13.3880081789
MEMBER
22.2349784833
construction(s)
in the set (Gries
& Stefanowitsch
2004).
ENERGY
12.9243769364
MIND
22.2349784833
• In this
case,
we
are
interested
in
seeing
which nouns
PRESSURE
12.9243769364
PLACE
21.1755485918
prefer
A GREAT
MANY, and
prefer A
CONFIDENCE
12.4608875994
CHILDwhich nouns
18.1479578549
GREAT
OF.
DIFFICULTY DEAL 11.997540081
CITIZEN
17.7832578285
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Multidimensional scaling of registers based on the
occurence of nouns in A GREAT MANY
Cross-register/domain variation
• Linguistic units, such as constructions, are rarely
monoliths, but typically display variation across different
varieties, and we have to take into account variation in
our descriptions of such phenomena (Gregory 1967:
179; Harder 2015).
• Some varieties are user-based, such as dialects and
sociolects (McArthur 1992: 1081)
• Others are use-based, such as registers (McArthur:
1992, 1081); as Ferguson (1983) points out, registers
Multidimensional
registers based on the
often have their own
sets
of grammatical
and
Heatmap
of noun-register
interaction for scaling
the
top of
25lexical
occurence
of nouns in A GREAT DEAL OF
nouns in A GREAT
DEAL OF
conventions.
• In this case, we are going to have a look at variation
Cross-register
of the
two constructions
acrossdistribution
the five
domains/registers
in COCA.
Multidimensional scaling of registers based on overall
occurrence
of for
nouns
in the
Heatmap of noun-register
interaction
the top
25 two constructions.
nouns in A GREAT MANY
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Comparison of constructional productivity
• Constructional productivity is a constructions ability to occur with
many different words:
• Constructions with few hapax legomenae have low constructional
productivity
• Constructions with many hapax legomenae have high constructional
productivity
• Lexical richness is a term used with reference to how lexically
diverse a text is (that is how many different words appear in it).
• There are many ways to measure lexical richness, one of which is to
calculate lexical growth curves (Baayen 2008)
• Shibuya (2015) points out that the principles behind lexical diversity
and constructional productivity are very similar
• Consequently, lexical growth curves can also be used to measure
constructional productivity.
• In this case, we are interested in seeing whether our two constructions differ
in terms of constructional productivity.
Lexical growth curves indicating lexical richness
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Diachronic study
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Data
• Corpus of Historical American English (COHA):
• 406,232,024 words
• 1810-2009
• Domains/registers:
• Fiction
• Non-fiction
• Popular magazines
• Newspapers
• Non-fictional books
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Overall distribution of the two
constructions over time
25
Frequency per million words
20
15
A GREAT MANY
A GREAT DEAL OF
10
5
0
2000s
1990s
1980s
1970s
1960s
1950s
1940s
1930s
1920s
1910s
1900s
1890s
1880s
1870s
1860s
1850s
1840s
1830s
1820s
1810s
Decades
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Tracking micro-changes using the motion
chart technique
• A motion chart is a way to visualize change over
time, such that change is represented as
movement within a two-dimensional coordinate
system.
• The application of motions charts was pioneered
by Hilpert (2011, 2012) and is still very much in
an experimental stage.
• My (experimental) motion chart can be found
here:
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/219090046/nom.html
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Concluding remarks
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
Conclusions
•
•
Hjulmand & Schwarz (2008: 126) were not wrong.
However, the reality of the two constructions is more complex than one
might expect:
• A GREAT DEAL of and A GREAT MANY are not used equally frequently
in American English, and the latter seems to be on the way to falling out
of use.
• A GREAT DEAL OF is primarily a feature of spoken American English
and, interestingly, written academic American English.
• Both constructions prefer some nouns more than other nouns:
• A GREAT DEAL OF prefers time, money, and attention and genereally more
abstract nouns
• A GREAT MANY prefers thing, American, man, and seems to have a special
preference of nouns that refer to people.
• A GREAT DEAL OF seems to be less productive than A GREAT MANY.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University
References
•
Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•
Croft, W.A.. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Psychological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•
Croft, W.A. (2003). Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press.
•
Croft, W.A. & D.A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
•
Ferguson, C.A. (1983). 'Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation.” Language in Society, 12 (2): 153-172.
•
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay & M.C. O'Connor (1988). 'Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone'. Language, 64 (3): 50139.
•
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
•
Gregory, M. (1967). 'Aspects of varieties differentiation.' Journal of Linguistics, 3 (2): 177-198.
•
Gries, S.Th. (2009). Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
•
Gries, S.Th. & A. Stefanowitsch (2004). 'Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on 'alternations''. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics, 9(1): 97-129.
•
Harder, P. (2015). 'Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s)'. Paper presented at the Substance and Structure in Linguistics workshop at
Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark, February 27-28.
•
Hilpert, M. (2011). 'Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora'.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4): 435-461.
•
Hilpert, M. (2012). Motion Chart Resource Page. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://members.unine.ch/martin.hilpert/motion.html
•
Hilpert, M (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
•
Hjulmand, L.-L., & H. Schwarz (2008). A Concise Contrastive Grammar of English for Danish Students (2nd ed.). Frederiksberg: Samfundsstudier.
•
McArthur, T. (1992). 'Variety.' In T. McArthur (ed.), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1081-1082.
•
Shibuya, Y. (2015). 'Lexical and constructional richness of adjectives: A diachronic study'. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on
Cognitive Linguistics, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, July 20-25.
•
Stefanowitsch, A. & S.Th. Gries (2003). 'Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions'. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 8(2): 209-243.
•
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
CGS, Aalborg University