[Corpora-List] ICLC-14 Tartu, Estonia, Language variation and diversity at the mid-level of abstraction Call for papers

Natalia Levshina natalevs at gmail.com
Fri Jul 29 15:28:36 CEST 2016


*Language variation and diversity at the mid-level of abstraction*

Theme session at the ICLC-14, Tartu, Estonia, 10–14 July 2017

Call for papers

Organizers:

Natalia Levshina (Leipzig University) natalia.levshina at uni-leipzig.de

Doris Schönefeld (Leipzig University) schoenefeld at uni-leipzig.de

Usage-based linguistics has placed strong emphasis on explaining schematic patterns as results of abstracting from repetitive and similar individual usage events. In between these layers, at the mid-levels of linguistic abstraction, speakers are assumed to have stored many mixed patterns consisting of schematic and lexical material. Material of this kind has been shown to play an important part in the organization of a speaker’s knowledge of his/her own language. Its effects could be traced in studies of language representation (e.g. Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003 and later works), acquisition (e.g. Tomasello 2005; Lieven & Ambridge 2011), processing (e.g. Gries et al. 2005) and change (e.g. Hilpert 2012). The phenomena in question, which have been made measurable by various types of association measures, come to the fore in the study of usage as patterns emerging through repetition; they are reminiscent of the Sinclairian differentiation between the open-choice and idiom principles (Sinclair 1991: 109–115). The claim derived from such patterns is that usage relies on lexico-grammatical patterns much more intensely than the traditional distinction between lexicon and grammar, or words and schemata, etc., implies (e.g. Boas 2003; Hampe & Schönefeld 2006).

At the same time, contemporary Cognitive Linguistics places great emphasis on language variation (e.g. Kristiansen & Dirven 2008; Croft 2009; Schmid 2015). Moreover, there is a growing awareness of the importance of linguistic diversity in Cognitive-Linguistic research, which has also been chosen as the special theme of the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. However, the overwhelming majority of cross-linguistic/lectal studies focus on linguistic patterns at very high levels of generalization, whereas most lexico-grammatical studies are based on one language (variety). Although there have been a few variational collostructional studies (e.g. dialectal variation by Wulff et al. 2007 and register variation by Schönefeld 2013), as well as cross-linguistic collostructional analyses (e.g. Gilquin 2015), such studies are the exception rather than the rule.

The aim of our theme session is to fill this gap and to create a forum for a discussion of variational and cross-linguistic studies that focus on different types of distributional co-occurrence phenomena (collostructions, colligations, collocations, lexical bundles, etc.) at the mid-level of abstraction. We invite contributions expanding our understanding of speakers’ linguistic knowledge and enhancing the methods for deciphering it:

A. Variational, diachronic and cross-linguistic studies based on data that involve both words and schemata, for example:

- cross-lectal and diachronic distinctive collexeme analyses

- contrastive collostructional analyses

- dialectal, diachronic and cross-linguistic studies embracing distributional approaches to semantics, such as Semantic Vector Spaces (e.g. Perek 2016)

- collostructional approaches to learner corpus research

- (re-)examination of cross-linguistic and dialectal grammatical differences by taking into account lower-level patterns (e.g. Levshina et al. 2013)

B. Methodological contributions on the following and related topics:

- statistical properties and linguistic interpretation of association measures used for the estimation of collostructional attraction and repulsion

- integration of semantic similarity between collexemes in collostructional studies (cf. Bybee & Eddington 2006)

- corpus frequency vs. measures of corpus dispersion and contextual variability as the basis for collostructional attraction

- *tertia comparationis* (e.g. semantic classes or fields) in contrastive collostructional analyses

- visualization of collostructional data

Abstracts should be submitted before *September 1 2016* electronically to natalia.levshina at uni-leipzig.de and should not exceed one page (including references). See http://iclc14.ut.ee/general-and-poster-session for further guidelines.

References

Boas, H. C. 2003. *A Constructional Approach to Resultatives*. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Bybee, J. & D. Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. *Language* 82: 323–55. Croft, W. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds.), *New directions in cognitive linguistics*, 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gilquin, G. 2015. Contrastive collostructional analysis: Causative constructions in English and French. *Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik* 63(3): 253–272. Gries, S. Th., B. Hampe & D. Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. *Cognitive Linguistics* 16(4): 635–676. Hampe, B. & D. Schönefeld. 2006. Syntactic Leaps or lexical variation? – More on ‘Creative Syntax’. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds.), *Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: The Syntax-Lexis Interface, *127–157. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hilpert, M. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying *many a noun* in COHA. In T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (eds.), *The Oxford handbook of the history of English, *233–244. Oxford: OUP. Kristiansen, G. & R. Dirven (eds.) 2008. *Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems*. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Levshina, N., D. Geeraerts & D. Speelman. 2013. Towards a 3D-Grammar: Interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic factors in the use of Dutch causative constructions. *Journal of Pragmatics* 52: 34–48. Lieven, E. & B. Ambridge. 2011. *Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches*. Cambridge: CUP. Perek, F. (2016). Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. *Linguistics* 54(1): 149–188. Schmid, H.-J. 2015. A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Y*earbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association* 3: 1–27. Schönefeld, D. 2013. *It is … quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested *(BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-en construction.* Journal of Pragmatics* 52: 17–33. Sinclair, J. 1991. *Corpus, Concordance, Collocation*. Oxford: OUP. Stefanowitsch, A. & S. Th. Gries 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 8: 209–43. Tomasello, M. 2005. *Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition*. Wulff, S., Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2007). Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), *Aspects of Meaning Construction *(pp. 265–281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 22918 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://mailman.uib.no/public/corpora/attachments/20160729/6776ec50/attachment.txt>



More information about the Corpora mailing list