Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption

The present paper argues that there is ample corpus evidence of statistical preemption for learners to make use of. In the case of argument structure constructions, a verbi is preempted from appearing in a construction A, CxA, if and only if the following probability is high: P(CxB|context that woul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cognitive linguistics 2011-02, Vol.22 (1), p.131-153
1. Verfasser: Goldberg, Adele E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 153
container_issue 1
container_start_page 131
container_title Cognitive linguistics
container_volume 22
creator Goldberg, Adele E
description The present paper argues that there is ample corpus evidence of statistical preemption for learners to make use of. In the case of argument structure constructions, a verbi is preempted from appearing in a construction A, CxA, if and only if the following probability is high: P(CxB|context that would be suitable for CxA and verbi). For example, the probability of hearing a preemptive construction, given a context that would otherwise be well-suited for the ditransitive is high for verbs like explain that overwhelmingly appear in the dative, and low for verbs like tell that readily appear in the ditransitive. Strength of statistical preemption is determined both by this probability, and by the frequency (ln (F)) of a verb in a preemptive construction when the context is at least as well suited to the preempted construction. The critiques of preemption by Stefanowitsch (Cognitive Linguistics 19: 513–531, 2008, this volume) are countered by arguing that the relevant probabilities were not considered. Moreover, we find evidence that constructions are somewhat less constrained when yoked to non-alternating verbs, as Stefanowitsch (cf. this volume) suggests should be the case.
doi_str_mv 10.1515/cogl.2011.006
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_888693959</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>881460780</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-d0a93cafa41170175e6d285f30e2068a6b3e1bf7f2fdbc7a27a7128a6ec9ce673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0EFLwzAUwPEgCs7p0XtvnjrzkjZJvUl1TiiIOM8hTV812q21yYb79rZM9KinB48fD96fkHOgM0ghvbTtSzNjFGBGqTggExDAYy4SOCQTmnERpxmVx-TE-zdKIaVMTshV3vbdxke4dRWuLUZtHYVXjLbOlK5xYTcufDDB-eCsaaKuR1x1wbXrU3JUm8bj2feckuf57TJfxMXD3X1-XcQ24TLEFTUZt6Y2CYCkIFMUFVNpzSkyKpQRJUcoa1mzuiqtNEwaCWzYo80sCsmn5GJ_t-vbjw36oFfOW2was8Z247VSSmQ8S7N_SEgElYr-LaVgTEGmBhnvpe1b73usdde7lel3Gqges-sxux6z6yH7rx-C4ecPNv27Hn6RqX5cJjopnhbFjZrrnH8BDLOEuA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>876228198</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption</title><source>De Gruyter journals</source><creator>Goldberg, Adele E</creator><creatorcontrib>Goldberg, Adele E</creatorcontrib><description>The present paper argues that there is ample corpus evidence of statistical preemption for learners to make use of. In the case of argument structure constructions, a verbi is preempted from appearing in a construction A, CxA, if and only if the following probability is high: P(CxB|context that would be suitable for CxA and verbi). For example, the probability of hearing a preemptive construction, given a context that would otherwise be well-suited for the ditransitive is high for verbs like explain that overwhelmingly appear in the dative, and low for verbs like tell that readily appear in the ditransitive. Strength of statistical preemption is determined both by this probability, and by the frequency (ln (F)) of a verb in a preemptive construction when the context is at least as well suited to the preempted construction. The critiques of preemption by Stefanowitsch (Cognitive Linguistics 19: 513–531, 2008, this volume) are countered by arguing that the relevant probabilities were not considered. Moreover, we find evidence that constructions are somewhat less constrained when yoked to non-alternating verbs, as Stefanowitsch (cf. this volume) suggests should be the case.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0936-5907</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1613-3641</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1515/cogl.2011.006</identifier><identifier>CODEN: COGLEJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</publisher><subject>construction learning ; dative ; ditransitive ; statistical preemption</subject><ispartof>Cognitive linguistics, 2011-02, Vol.22 (1), p.131-153</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-d0a93cafa41170175e6d285f30e2068a6b3e1bf7f2fdbc7a27a7128a6ec9ce673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-d0a93cafa41170175e6d285f30e2068a6b3e1bf7f2fdbc7a27a7128a6ec9ce673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Goldberg, Adele E</creatorcontrib><title>Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption</title><title>Cognitive linguistics</title><addtitle>Cognitive Linguistics</addtitle><description>The present paper argues that there is ample corpus evidence of statistical preemption for learners to make use of. In the case of argument structure constructions, a verbi is preempted from appearing in a construction A, CxA, if and only if the following probability is high: P(CxB|context that would be suitable for CxA and verbi). For example, the probability of hearing a preemptive construction, given a context that would otherwise be well-suited for the ditransitive is high for verbs like explain that overwhelmingly appear in the dative, and low for verbs like tell that readily appear in the ditransitive. Strength of statistical preemption is determined both by this probability, and by the frequency (ln (F)) of a verb in a preemptive construction when the context is at least as well suited to the preempted construction. The critiques of preemption by Stefanowitsch (Cognitive Linguistics 19: 513–531, 2008, this volume) are countered by arguing that the relevant probabilities were not considered. Moreover, we find evidence that constructions are somewhat less constrained when yoked to non-alternating verbs, as Stefanowitsch (cf. this volume) suggests should be the case.</description><subject>construction learning</subject><subject>dative</subject><subject>ditransitive</subject><subject>statistical preemption</subject><issn>0936-5907</issn><issn>1613-3641</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqN0EFLwzAUwPEgCs7p0XtvnjrzkjZJvUl1TiiIOM8hTV812q21yYb79rZM9KinB48fD96fkHOgM0ghvbTtSzNjFGBGqTggExDAYy4SOCQTmnERpxmVx-TE-zdKIaVMTshV3vbdxke4dRWuLUZtHYVXjLbOlK5xYTcufDDB-eCsaaKuR1x1wbXrU3JUm8bj2feckuf57TJfxMXD3X1-XcQ24TLEFTUZt6Y2CYCkIFMUFVNpzSkyKpQRJUcoa1mzuiqtNEwaCWzYo80sCsmn5GJ_t-vbjw36oFfOW2was8Z247VSSmQ8S7N_SEgElYr-LaVgTEGmBhnvpe1b73usdde7lel3Gqges-sxux6z6yH7rx-C4ecPNv27Hn6RqX5cJjopnhbFjZrrnH8BDLOEuA</recordid><startdate>201102</startdate><enddate>201102</enddate><creator>Goldberg, Adele E</creator><general>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201102</creationdate><title>Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption</title><author>Goldberg, Adele E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c437t-d0a93cafa41170175e6d285f30e2068a6b3e1bf7f2fdbc7a27a7128a6ec9ce673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>construction learning</topic><topic>dative</topic><topic>ditransitive</topic><topic>statistical preemption</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Goldberg, Adele E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Cognitive linguistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Goldberg, Adele E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption</atitle><jtitle>Cognitive linguistics</jtitle><addtitle>Cognitive Linguistics</addtitle><date>2011-02</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>131</spage><epage>153</epage><pages>131-153</pages><issn>0936-5907</issn><eissn>1613-3641</eissn><coden>COGLEJ</coden><abstract>The present paper argues that there is ample corpus evidence of statistical preemption for learners to make use of. In the case of argument structure constructions, a verbi is preempted from appearing in a construction A, CxA, if and only if the following probability is high: P(CxB|context that would be suitable for CxA and verbi). For example, the probability of hearing a preemptive construction, given a context that would otherwise be well-suited for the ditransitive is high for verbs like explain that overwhelmingly appear in the dative, and low for verbs like tell that readily appear in the ditransitive. Strength of statistical preemption is determined both by this probability, and by the frequency (ln (F)) of a verb in a preemptive construction when the context is at least as well suited to the preempted construction. The critiques of preemption by Stefanowitsch (Cognitive Linguistics 19: 513–531, 2008, this volume) are countered by arguing that the relevant probabilities were not considered. Moreover, we find evidence that constructions are somewhat less constrained when yoked to non-alternating verbs, as Stefanowitsch (cf. this volume) suggests should be the case.</abstract><pub>Walter de Gruyter GmbH &amp; Co. KG</pub><doi>10.1515/cogl.2011.006</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0936-5907
ispartof Cognitive linguistics, 2011-02, Vol.22 (1), p.131-153
issn 0936-5907
1613-3641
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_888693959
source De Gruyter journals
subjects construction learning
dative
ditransitive
statistical preemption
title Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T21%3A45%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Corpus%20evidence%20of%20the%20viability%20of%20statistical%20preemption&rft.jtitle=Cognitive%20linguistics&rft.au=Goldberg,%20Adele%20E&rft.date=2011-02&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=131&rft.epage=153&rft.pages=131-153&rft.issn=0936-5907&rft.eissn=1613-3641&rft.coden=COGLEJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1515/cogl.2011.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E881460780%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=876228198&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true