REFERENTIAL PROPERTIES OF ENGLISH DETACHED NONFINITE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH AN EXPLICIT SUBJECT: OPERATIONALIZATION AND QUANTIFICATION

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published: Jan 17, 2022

  Viktoriia Zhukovska

Abstract

This article presents the results of quantitative-corpus parameterization of reference properties of English detached nonfinite constructions with an explicit subject, carried out from the perspective of the cognitive-quantitative approach to language study. Through the prism of cognitive-constructive grammar, the syntactic patterns under scrutiny are recognized as grammatical constructions, i.e. complex semiotic units, non-compositional cognitively motivated pairings of form and conceptual meaning/ function, stored as holistic, conceptually connected, and interacting structures. Corpus-quantitative parameterization of referential properties of the given constructions presupposes the analysis of the linguistic means of expressing coreference between five micro-constructions and a corresponding matrix clause, reflected by the factors “Coreference” (COREF) and “Absence of coreference” (ØCOREF) of the parameter “Reference relations” (REFREL). Quantitative verification of the data involves a three-stage quantitative procedure incorporating 1) a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), 2) a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and 3) Tukey’s multiple comparison test performed with a computer statistical data analysis software R. The obtained results prove that the non-augmented constructions show a stronger semantic integration into a matrix clause, compensating lack of syntactic connection by closer reference relations, manifested by explicitly expressed full or partial coreference. The use of augmentors facilitates the identification of with-, without-, despite- and what_with- augmented constructions as syntactic patterns, thus balancing the absence of coreference and ensuring adequate cognitive processing of constructions.

How to Cite

Zhukovska, V. (2022). REFERENTIAL PROPERTIES OF ENGLISH DETACHED NONFINITE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH AN EXPLICIT SUBJECT: OPERATIONALIZATION AND QUANTIFICATION. Academia Polonica, 48(5), 94-102. Retrieved from http://www.baltijapublishing.lv/index.php/pnap/article/view/4515
Article views: 0 | PDF Downloads: 0

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

construction grammar, quantitative corpus linguistics, coreference, parameterization

References
Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics. A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambriadge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899
British National Corpus (BNC-BYU) [corpus] – URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/
Chappell, H., McGregor W. (1996). Prologomena to a theory of inalienability. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability. A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part-Whole Relation. (pp. 3-30). Mouton de Gruyter.
Combettes, B. (2005). Les constructions détachées comme cadres de discours. Langue Française, 4, 31–44.
Croft, W. (2008). Construction Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (pp. 463-508). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738632.001.0001
Croft, W., Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864
Fabricius-Hansen, C., Haug, D.T.T, Soebø, K. J. (2012). Closed adjuncts: degrees of pertinence. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & D. Haug (Eds.), Big Events, Small Clauses. The grammar of elaboration. (pp. 55–92). De Gruyter https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285864
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A.E., (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691183954
Hoffmann, Th. (2017). Construction Grammars. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732
Janda, L. A. (2013). Cognitive linguistics: the quantitative turn. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110335255
Kortmann, B. (1991). Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: Problems of control and interpretation. London, New York : Routledge.
Martinčič, U. (2014). Encasting the Absolutes. English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, Vol. XI. 21-34. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.11.2.21-35
Östman, J.-O., Fried, M. (2004). Historical and intellectual background of Construction Grammar. In M. Fried & J.-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in Cross-Language Perspective. (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2
Quirk, R., Greembaum, S., Leech. G., & Svartvik J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Tronskiy, I.M. (2001). Istoricheskaya grammatika latinskogo yazyka. Obshcheindoyevropeyskoye yazykovoye sostoyaniye (voprosy rekonstruktsii). [Historical grammar of the Latin language. General Indo-European linguistic state (reconstruction issues)]. Moscow: Indrik. [in Russian]
Visser, F. Th. (1972). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part II (2) Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.