Collostructional methods
Collostructional analysis so far comprises three different methods: * collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction/repulsion of a lemma to a slot in one particular construction; * distinctive collexeme analysis, to measure the preference of a lemma to one particular construction over another, functionally similar construction; multiple distinctive collexeme analysis extends this approach to more than two alternative constructions; * covarying collexeme analysis, to measure the degree of attraction of lemmas in one slot of a construction to lemmas in another slot of the same construction.Input frequencies
Collostructional analysis requires frequencies of words and constructions and is similar to a wide variety of collocation statistics. It differs from raw frequency counts by providing not only observed co-occurrence frequencies of words and constructions, but also (i) a comparison of the observed frequency to the one expected by chance; thus, collostructional analysis can distinguish attraction and repulsion of words and constructions; (ii) a measure of the strength of the attraction or repulsion; this is usually the log-transformedVersus other collocation statistics
Collostructional analysis differs from mostSee also
*References
General references
* Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004a. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on 'alternations'. ''International Journal of Corpus Linguistics'' 9.1:97-129. * Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004b. Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In: Achard, Michel & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). ''Language, Culture, and Mind''. Stanford, CA: CSLI, p. 225-36. * Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2011. Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In: Newman, John & Sally Rice (eds.). ''Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research''. Stanford, CA: CSLI. * Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. ''International Journal of Corpus Linguistics'' 8.2:209-43. * Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Co-varying collexemes. ''Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory'' 1.1:1-43. * Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2006. Negative evidence and the raw frequency fallacy. ''Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory'' 2.1:61-77.Applications
* Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. ''Journal of Psycholinguistic Research'' 34.4:365-99. * Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. ''Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics'' 3:182-200. * Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. ''Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory'' 2.2:243-57. * Jensen, Kim Ebensgaard. 2012. Fatal attraction: inheritance and collostruction in the ''ihjel''-construction. ''Skandinaviske Sprogstudier'' 3.2:1-30. * Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2005. The function of metaphor: developing a corpus-based perspective. ''International Journal of Corpus Linguistics'' 10.2: 161–198. * Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. Sense-contingent lexical preferences and early parsing decisions .. ''Cognitive Linguistics'' 19.3: 439–455.Papers that document its predictive superiority over raw frequency counts
* Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, & Doris Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: .. ''Cognitive Linguistics'' 16.4:635-76. * Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, & Doris Schönefeld. to appear. Converging evidence II: .. In: Newman, John & Sally Rice (eds.). ''Experimental and Empirical Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research''. Stanford, CA: CSLI. (working title) * Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the Computation of Collostruction Strength: .. ''Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory'' 4.2: 253–290. Natural language parsing Methods in linguistics Statistical natural language processing