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!