Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

A great many things and a great deal of stuff: A synchronic and diachronic corpus study of two

nominal constructions in American English

Academic Day 2015

English Department, Aalborg University

IntroductionIntroduction

• "When translating from Danish, note than [sic.] 'en hel del' is a good/great deal of in front of uncountable nouns, but a good/great many in front of countable nouns in the plural: We spent a great deal of time on the project. I have a great many friends in London." (Hjulmand & Schwarz 2008: 126)

• This reflects a general assumption in English grammar that A GREAT DEAL OF is a non-countable nominal construction and A GREAT MANY is a countable nominal construction.

• We can treat this as a hypothesis about the two constructions, which we can empirically test in a number of ways and thus learn more about the two constructions.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

IntroductionIntroduction

• A quick overview of the two constructions• Synchronic study:

• Data• Analyses:

• Testing the overall hypothesis• Distribution of nouns in the two constructions• Cross-register/domain variation• Comparison of constructional productivity

• Diachronic study:• Data• Analyses:

• Overall distribution of the two constructions over time• Tracking micro-changes using motion charts

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

A quick overview of A quick overview of the two constructionsthe two constructions

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

The basicsThe basics

• They're both nominal constructions and their propositional act function is that of reference (Croft 2003: 184-188)

• They're both intensifying quantifying nominal constructions in that they construe a large quantity and then intensify it, making it appear even larger or perhaps more dramatic.

• They can be described using terminology from cognitive semantics (Talmy 2000).

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

A GREAT MANYA GREAT MANY

• A GREAT MANY construes a plurality of individuated entities and then intensifies this multiplex.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

A GREAT DEAL OFA GREAT DEAL OF

• A GREAT DEAL OF construes a large portion of a mass that is not internally bounded (that is it does not consist of individuated units) and intensifies it.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

A GREAT MANY vs. A GREAT A GREAT MANY vs. A GREAT DEAL OFDEAL OF

• There were a great many people on the bus.

• They bought a great deal of oil from us last year.

• I ate a great many cakes. vs. I ate a great deal of cake.

• We saw a great many goats on the road. vs. We saw a great deal of goat on the road.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Synchronic studySynchronic study

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

DataData

• Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA):• 464,020,256 words• 1990-2012• Domains/registers:

• Spoken (SPOK)• Fiction (FICT)• Magazines (MAG)• Newspapers (NEWS)• Academic writing (ACAD)

• A GREAT MANY is used with count nouns, and A GREAT DEAL OF is used with mass nouns / non-count nouns

• H1: If A GREAT MANY is used, then the noun will be a count noun more often than a non-count noun; if A GREAT DEAL OF is used, then the noun will be a non-count noun more often than a count noun; in A GREAT MANY, the noun will be a count noun more often than the noun in A GREAT DEAL OF, and in A GREAT DEAL OF, the noun will be a non-count noun more often than in A GREAT MANY.

• H0: If A GREAT MANY is used, then the noun will not be a count noun more often than a non-count noun; if A GREAT DEAL OF is used, then the noun will not be a non-count noun more often than a count noun; in A GREAT MANY, the noun will not be a count noun more often than the noun in A GREAT DEAL OF, and in A GREAT DEAL OF, the noun will not be a non-count noun more often than the noun in A GREAT MANY.See Gries(2009: 10-14) for more on hypotheses in quantitative linguistics.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Testing the hypothesisTesting the hypothesis

Overall distribution of the two constructions

Distribution of number categories in A GREAT MANY Distribution of number categories in A GREAT DEAL OF

Fisher-Yates Exact test for statistical significanceA GREAT MANY: p < 0.05

A GREAT DEAL OF: p < 0.05All four values: p < 0.05

• Distinctive collexeme analysis: a subtype of collostructional analysis (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003), which allows one to identify, in a set of two or more constructions, which construction a word prefers and how much it prefers it compared to the other construction(s) in the set (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004).

• In this case, we are interested in seeing which nouns prefer A GREAT MANY, and which nouns prefer A GREAT DEAL OF.

Distribution of nouns in the two Distribution of nouns in the two constructionsconstructions

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Distinctive collexeme analysis of the two constructions

Top 22 nouns that appear in A GREAT DEAL OF Top 22 nouns that appear in A GREAT MANY

Noun Collostruction strength Noun Collostruction strength

TIME 118.5043687403 THING 363.1242932785

MONEY 59.0486731889 AMERICAN 125.2856827484

ATTENTION 52.8487143307 MAN 62.4075095355

WORK 32.2853728292 OTHER 53.4635632065

INFORMATION 31.8159203885 WOMAN 53.4635632065

RESPECT 25.0251644734 WAY 33.7911791392

EFFORT 20.5925037319 QUESTION 31.1648732103

RESEARCH 18.9626834735 BOOK 26.6890685663

PAIN 16.4050762192 ISSUE 26.6890685663

CONCERN 16.1727805282 REPUBLICAN 26.6890685663

SUPPORT 15.7082960224 FACTOR 22.2349784833

EVIDENCE 13.3880081789 MEMBER 22.2349784833

ENERGY 12.9243769364 MIND 22.2349784833

PRESSURE 12.9243769364 PLACE 21.1755485918

CONFIDENCE 12.4608875994 CHILD 18.1479578549

DIFFICULTY 11.997540081 CITIZEN 17.7832578285

POWER 10.6083475689 JEW 17.7832578285

INTEREST 10.4917978957 NATION 17.7832578285

SENSE 10.3769393344 POLITICIAN 17.7832578285

EXPERIENCE 10.2875346293 SCHOLAR 17.7832578285

INFLUENCE 9.9142289259 BED 13.3339031203

THOUGHT 9.6773512305 BOAT 13.3339031203

• Linguistic units, such as constructions, are rarely monoliths, but typically display variation across different varieties, and we have to take into account variation in our descriptions of such phenomena (Gregory 1967: 179; Harder 2015).

• Some varieties are user-based, such as dialects and sociolects (McArthur 1992: 1081)

• Others are use-based, such as registers (McArthur: 1992, 1081); as Ferguson (1983) points out, registers often have their own sets of grammatical and lexical conventions.

• In this case, we are going to have a look at variation across the five domains/registers in COCA.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Cross-register/domain variationCross-register/domain variation

Cross-register distribution of the two constructions

Multidimensional scaling of registers based on overall occurrence of nouns in the two constructions.

Multidimensional scaling of registers based on the occurence of nouns in A GREAT MANY

Multidimensional scaling of registers based on the occurence of nouns in A GREAT DEAL OF

Heatmap of noun-register interaction for the top 25 nouns in A GREAT DEAL OF

Heatmap of noun-register interaction for the top 25 nouns in A GREAT MANY

• Constructional productivity is a constructions ability to occur with many different words:• Constructions with few hapax legomenae have low constructional productivity• Constructions with many hapax legomenae have high constructional

productivity• Lexical richness is a term used with reference to how lexically diverse a

text is (that is how many different words appear in it).• There are many ways to measure lexical richness, one of which is to

calculate lexical growth curves (Baayen 2008)• Shibuya (2015) points out that the principles behind lexical diversity and

constructional productivity are very similar• Consequently, lexical growth curves can also be used to measure constructional

productivity.• In this case, we are interested in seeing whether our two constructions differ in

terms of constructional productivity.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Comparison of constructional productivityComparison of constructional productivity

Lexical growth curves indicating lexical richness

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Diachronic studyDiachronic study

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

DataData

• Corpus of Historical American English (COHA):• 406,232,024 words• 1810-2009• Domains/registers:

• Fiction • Non-fiction

• Popular magazines• Newspapers• Non-fictional books

Overall distribution of the two Overall distribution of the two constructions over timeconstructions over time

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

1810s

1820s

1830s

1840s

1850s

1860s

1870s

1880s

1890s

1900s

1910s

1920s

1930s

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

0

5

10

15

20

25

A GREAT MANYA GREAT DEAL OF

Decades

Freq

uenc

y pe

r milli

on w

ords

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Tracking micro-changes using the motion Tracking micro-changes using the motion chart techniquechart technique

• A motion chart is a way to visualize change over time, such that change is represented as movement within a two-dimensional coordinate system.

• The application of motions charts was pioneered by Hilpert (2011, 2012) and is still very much in an experimental stage.

• My (experimental) motion chart can be found here: http://vbn.aau.dk/files/219090046/nom.html

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

Concluding remarksConcluding remarks

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

ConclusionsConclusions

• Hjulmand & Schwarz (2008: 126) were not wrong.• However, the reality of the two constructions is more complex than one

might expect:• A GREAT DEAL of and A GREAT MANY are not used equally

frequently in American English, and the latter seems to be on the way to falling out of use.

• A GREAT DEAL OF is primarily a feature of spoken American English and, interestingly, written academic American English.

• Both constructions prefer some nouns more than other nouns:• A GREAT DEAL OF prefers time, money, and attention and genereally more

abstract nouns• A GREAT MANY prefers thing, American, man, and seems to have a special

preference of nouns that refer to people.• A GREAT DEAL OF seems to be less productive than A GREAT MANY.

Kim Ebensgaard JensenCGS, Aalborg University

ReferencesReferences

• Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Croft, W.A.. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Psychological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• Croft, W.A. (2003). Typology and Universals (2nd ed.). Cambrudge: Cambridge University Press.• Croft, W.A. & D.A. Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Ferguson, C.A. (1983). 'Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation.” Language in Society, 12 (2): 153-172.• Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay & M.C. O'Connor (1988). 'Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone'. Language, 64 (3): 501-

39.• Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.• Gregory, M. (1967). 'Aspects of varieties differentiation.' Journal of Linguistics, 3 (2): 177-198.• Gries, S.Th. (2009). Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.• Gries, S.Th. & A. Stefanowitsch (2004). 'Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on 'alternations''. International Journal of

Corpus Linguistics, 9(1): 97-129.• Harder, P. (2015). 'Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s)'. Paper presented at the Substance and Structure in Linguistics workshop at

Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark, February 27-28.• Hilpert, M. (2011). 'Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora'.

International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(4): 435-461.• Hilpert, M. (2012). Motion Chart Resource Page. Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://members.unine.ch/martin.hilpert/motion.html• Hilpert, M (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.• Hjulmand, L.-L., & H. Schwarz (2008). A Concise Contrastive Grammar of English for Danish Students (2nd ed.). Frederiksberg: Samfundsstudier.• McArthur, T. (1992). 'Variety.' In T. McArthur (ed.), The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1081-1082. • Shibuya, Y. (2015). 'Lexical and constructional richness of adjectives: A diachronic study'. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on

Cognitive Linguistics, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, July 20-25.• Stefanowitsch, A. & S.Th. Gries (2003). 'Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions'. International Journal of Corpus

Linguistics, 8(2): 209-243. • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.