English with/with-less-SubjPI constructions: a case of a quantitative corpus-based

analysis

Victoria Zhukovska

Corpus Approaches to Lexicogrammar (LxGr) (2021)

Research aims

Theoretical and methodological assumptions

Corpus, data and statistical procedure

Results and discussion

Concluding remarks

OUTLINE

Detached augmented Participle I clauses with the explicit subject :

The experiment was repeated many times, [with [NP the bats] [XP taking turns to be the

starved victim]]] [BNC-BYU, ARR];

The plain is like a field of poppies, [with [NP the flowers] [XP growing most thickly near the

river]]] [BNC-BYU, FAJ].

Detached unaugmented Participle I clauses with the explicit subject:

He clutched at a rail and held on, [[NP heart] [XP thumping]], [[NP the blood] [XP pounding in

his ears]], [[NP his mind] [XP wailing for mercy]] [BNC-BYU, B1X];

I stood up, holding on to the back of my chair, [[NP my heart] [XP beating like a hammer]]

[BNC-BYU, FPU].

with/ with-less – constructions (Riehemann, Bender (1999))

[[with/ with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

(after Haff (2012))

PREVIOUS STUDIES:

Descriptive grammar: (Callaway (1889), Ross (1893), Steele (1902), Melten (1938), Basset

(1945), Аalto (1979), Stump (1985), Holland (1986), Nakagawa (2008), Bruno (2011), Timofeeva

(2011), Kortmann (2013), van de Pol, Petré (2015));

Generative grammar: (Riemsdijk (1978), McCawley (1983), Beukema, Hoekstra (1984),

Hanston (1992), Felser, Britain (2007));

Corpus-based studies: (Duggley, Dion-Girardeau (2015), He, Yang (2015), Fonteyn, van de

Pol (2015));

Functional systemic grammar: (He, Yang (2015), Khamesian (2016));

Construction Grammar: (Riehemann, Bender (1999), Bouzada-Jabois, Pérez-Guerra (2016)).

absolute constructions (Kortmann (1991); Riehemann, Bender (1999), small clauses (Stump (1985), non-

finite/verbless adjunct clauses (Yoo (2008))

detached constructions (Combettes (1998), Thompson (1983), Zhukovska (Жуковська (2021))

[[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]] vs [[with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

alternative / (quasi-)synonymous

Riehemann, Bender (1999), Hasselgård H. (2012), van de Pol N., Hoffmann

(2016)

(…) a difference in syntactic form always spells a

difference in meaning. (Bolinger 1968: 127)

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:

Construction grammar: constructions as conventionalized form-meaning

pairings, (complex) signs in which a particular form is paired with a particular

function (Langacker (1987, 1991); Fillmore (1988); Goldberg (1995, 2006); Croft

(2008); Hilpert (2019)).

Usage-based construction grammar: formally similar or even identical

constructions are different sub-constructions or even constructions, if they have

different communicative functions (Diessel (2017), Hilpert (2019)).

[[aug/øaug] [SBJNP] [PREDNF/VL]] CONSTRUCTIONS

MACRO-CONSTRUCTION dtcht-Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

MEZO-CONSTRUCTION

dtcht-øaug- Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

dtcht-aug-Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

{AUG: with, what with, without, despite, but, and}

MICRO-CONSTRUCTION

dtcht-øaug- Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

dtcht-with-Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

dtcht-despite-Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

dtcht- without – Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

dtcht- what with-Subj Prednf/vl-cxn

{NF: PI, PII, to-Inf; VL: NP, AdjP, AdvP, PP}

CONSTRUCT

[his cheeks burning suddenly]

[with thick spectacles perched at the very end of his nose]

[without insects crawling in my hair and vermin nibbling my toes ]

[despite oil being the lifeblood of industrial (modern) society]

[what with my three sons being away in the Army]

…

IDIOSYNCRATIC FEATURES

detcht-øaug-Subj PredPI-cxn

detcht-with-Subj PredPI-cxn

binary structure [NP XP];

secondary predication relations between the components (the first is a secondary subject (NP),

different from the subject of the matrix clause, the second is a secondary predicate (XP));

fixed slots (the augmentor slot (øaug/ aug), the subject is a noun group (NP) and the secondary

predicate (XP) is {NF: PI})

fixed order of constituents (the first component invariably precedes the second);

fixed type of connection with the matrix clause (augmented {AUG: with} or unaugmented {øaug});

equality and interdependence of components;

relative independence in the sentence;

detachment from the matrix clause.

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:

Quantitative corpus linguistics: the method of collostructional analysis

(Stefanowitsch, Gries (2003, 2005); Gries, Stefanowitsch (2004); Gries (2015))

[Subj NP]

the principle of semantic compatibility

“… a word may occur in a construction if it is semantically compatible with the meaning of the

construction” (Stefanowitsch, Gries (2003))

Gries, S.: Th.: Coll. Analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen

Сollostructional analysis

simple collexeme analysis distinctive collexeme analysis co-varying collexeme analysis

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS:

lexemes appearing in different slots of a construction display semantic coherence

grounded on the world knowledge as organized in frames (Stefanowitsch (2005: 23),

Schönefeld (2012: 26))

Frame Semantics: (Fillmore, Lee-Goldman, Rhodes (2012), Wiliński (2017, 2018,

2019)).

FrameNet project (https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/)

RESEARCH SAMPLE

THE BNC-BYU CORPUS (https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/)

Construction Tokens Noun types

[[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]] 2950 1445

[[with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]] 1535 236

POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY (P) OF A CONSTRUCTION

Construction Noun types Noun tokens Hapaxes P

[[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]] 1445 2950 965 0.33

[[with-

less][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

236 1535 126 0.08

THE SIMPLE COLLEXEME ANALYSIS OF THE [[with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]] CONSTRUCTION

The top 20 significantly attracted collexemes(coll. strength > 3 = p <0.001)

SEMANTIC FRAMES

The most strongly attracted nouns

(coll. strength > 3 = p <0.001)

SEMANTIC FRAMES

face, eyes, lips, cheeks, heart, stomach, hands,

legs, arms, voice, mind, gaze, smile, body,

(whole) being, head, breath, spirits, senses

BODY_PARTS

weather WEATHER

crew, conglomerate AGGREGATE

father KINSHIP

object, purpose, intention PURPOSE

reason, thing(s) REASON

emphasis EMPHASING

exception(s) INCLUSION

difference SIMILARITY

THE SIMPLE COLLEXEME ANALYSIS OF THE [[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]] CONSTRUCTION

The top 20 significantly attracted collexemes(coll. strength > 3 = p <0.001)

SEMANTIC FRAMES

The most strongly attracted nouns

(coll. strength > 3 = p <0.001)

SEMANTIC FRAMES

prices, inflation, profits, sales, cost COMMERCE_SCENARIO

people, woman PEOPLE

archeologist, investigator, author PEOPLE_BY_PROFESSION

minister, mayor LEADERSHIP

election, polls CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP

Republicans PEOPLE ALONG POLITICAL SPECTRUM

police LAW_ENFORCEMENT_AGENCY

pitch, score, player COMPETITION

team, staff, company, hundreds, thousands AGGREGATE

tear, hair, tail BODY_PART

…

THE TOP DISTINCTIVE COLLEXEMES OF THE

[[WITH][SUBJNP][PREDPІ]] AND [[WITH-LESS][SUBJNP][PREDPІ]] CONSTRUCTIONS

[[with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]] [[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

Agentivity of the

referentinanimate animate

Coreference with

[SubjM]+ -

Semantic roleTHEME/ PARTITIVE AGENT

NOUN COLLEXEMES

PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS

[[with-less][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

Descriptive function -

additional information about

physical characteristics and

inner state of the matrix

subject’s referent.

• Today he was more talkative than she had ever known

him, pleased with life, [his eyes shining with

enthusiasm]. (BNC-BYU, ACB)

• “Sara?” he said, uncertain, [his voice shaking]. (BNC-

BYU, H7F)

• She held out her hand. He just touched it, [his hand

trembling]. (BNC-BYU, FR6])

Support function -

supplementary information

(comments, specification,

explanation, etc.) to the

event in the matrix clause.

• As the title indicates, life is presented as being like a

game of hopscotch, [the object being to find a way to

the square of ultimate reality]. (BNC-BYU, APS)

• The book is, as the title suggests, about using the

sketchbook, [the emphasis being on information

gathering and aesthetic presentation]. (BNC-BYU,

CN4).

[[with][SubjNP][PredPІ]]

Support function -

supplementary context to the

event presented in the matrix

clause (elaborating on

actions and processes

promoting the centrality of a

human being in general for

the message).

• The average yearly fuel bill here is already 200 a year

more than in Great Britain, and these rises will lead to'

voluntary' disconnections, [with people being forced to

use less coal and electricity]. (BNC-BYU, HJ4]

• This trend will continue, [with women taking most of

the one million jobs projected for the 1990s]. (BNC-

BYU, HXT)

DISTRIBUTION IN THE BNC-BYU REGISTERS (FREQUENCY PER MILLION)

63,17

10,51

6,915,27

8,67

3,541,81

15,94

28,82

34,41

28,56

37,76 38,69

45,09

4,11

30,64

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FICTION MISCELENIOUS ACADEMIC NON-ACADEMIC MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER SPOKEN TOTAL

[[with-less][Subj NP][Pred PI]] [[with][Subj NP][Pred PI]]

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

[[WITH-LESS][SUBJNP][PREDPІ]] [[WITH][SUBJNP][PREDPІ]]

Quantity in the BNC-

BYU corpus1535 tokens / 236 different noun lexemes 2950 tokens / 1445 different noun lexemes

Hapax legomena

Productivity ratio

236 nouns/126 used once

(53.40%)

0.08

1445 nouns/ 965 used once

(66.78%)

0.33

The most numerous

Semantic Frames

9 semantic frames

BODY_PART (46 items, 76.6%)

19 semantic frames

COMMERCE_SCENARIO (21 items, 23,6 %)

Distinctive collexemes

Semantic Frames

23 nouns

BODY_PART (20 items), WEATHER (1), KINSHIP

(1), PURPOSE (1).

3 nouns (people, woman, man)

PEOPLE

Agentivity of the

subject’s referent

Semantic role

Inanimate

THEME/ PARTITIVE

Animate

AGENT

Register distribution fiction newspapers, magazines

Pragmatic functions Descriptive function

Support function Support function

REFERENCES1. BNC-BYU. https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/2. Croft, W.: Construction Grammar. In: Geeraerts D., Cuyckens H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of CognitiveLinguistics, Oxford University Press, 463-508 (2008).3. Fillmore, C.J., Lee-Goldman, R.R., Rhodes, R.-S.: The FrameNet constructicon. In: Boas H.C., Sag I.A. (eds.)Sign-Based Construction Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 283-299 (2012).4. Fillmore, Ch.: The Mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting ofthe Berkley Linguistic Society 14, 35-55 (1988).5. FrameNet. https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/WhatIsFrameNet.6. Haff, M.H. On absolutes in French, German, and NorwegianIn: Fabricius-Hansen С., Haug D.T.T. (eds.) BigEvents, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston : De Gruyter, 259-286 (2012).7. Goldberg, A. E.: Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press(2006).8. Gries, S. Th., Stefanowitsch, A.: Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’.In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1), 97-129 (2004).9. Gries, S. Th.: More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff(2013). In: Cognitive Linguistics 26(3), 505-536 (2015).10. Hilpert, M.: Constructional Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press (2019).11. Riehemann, S. Z., Bender, E.: Absolute constructions: On the distribution of predicative idioms. In: Bird S., CarnieA., Haugen J., Norquest P (eds.) WCCFL 18 Proceedings, Cascadilla Press, 476-489 (1999).12. Hoffmann, Th., Trousdale, G.: Construction grammar: Introduction. In: Hoffmann T., Trousdale G. (eds.) TheOxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, 15-31 (2013).13. Stefanowitsch, A., Gries, St. Th.: Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions.In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2), 209-243 (2003).14. Stefanowitsch, A.: Collostructional analysis. In: Hoffman Th., Trousdale G. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook ofConstruction Grammar. Oxford University Press, 290-307 (2013).

Thank you for your attention!