A great many things and a great deal

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 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Introduction • "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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Introduction • • 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

A quick overview of the two constructions Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

The 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

A GREAT MANY • A GREAT MANY construes a plurality of individuated entities and then intensifies this multiplex. Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

A 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

A GREAT MANY vs. A GREAT DEAL 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Synchronic study Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Data • 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) Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Testing the hypothesis • A GREAT MANY is used with count nouns, and A GREAT DEAL OF is used with mass nouns / non-count nouns • H 1: 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. • H 0: 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 noncount 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 Distribution of number categories in A GREAT DEAL OF Distribution of number categories in A GREAT MANY OF, the noun will not be a non-count noun more often than the noun in A GREAT MANY. Fisher-Yates Exact test for statistical significance GREAT p < 0. 05 in quantitative linguistics. See Gries(2009: 10 -14)Afor more. MANY: on hypotheses Overall distribution of the two constructions A GREAT DEAL OF: p < 0. 05 All four values: p < 0. 05 Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Distinctive collexeme analysis of the two constructions Distribution of nouns in 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 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 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 RESPECT 25. 0251644734 WAY 33. 7911791392 • Distinctive collexeme analysis: a subtype of EFFORT 20. 5925037319 QUESTION 31. 1648732103 collostructional analysis (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003), RESEARCH 18. 9626834735 BOOK 26. 6890685663 which allows one to identify, in a set of 26. 6890685663 two or more PAIN 16. 4050762192 ISSUE constructions, which construction a word prefers and CONCERN 16. 1727805282 REPUBLICAN 26. 6890685663 how. SUPPORT much it prefers to the 22. 2349784833 other 15. 7082960224 it compared FACTOR EVIDENCE 13. 3880081789 MEMBER 22. 2349784833 construction(s) in the set (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004). ENERGY 12. 9243769364 MIND 22. 2349784833 • In this case, we are interested in seeing which nouns PRESSURE 12. 9243769364 PLACE 21. 1755485918 prefer A GREAT MANY, and prefer A CONFIDENCE 12. 4608875994 CHILD which nouns 18. 1479578549 DIFFICULTY DEAL 11. 997540081 CITIZEN 17. 7832578285 GREAT OF. Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Multidimensional scaling of registers based on the occurence of nouns in A GREAT MANY Cross-register/domain variation • 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 (Mc. Arthur 1992: 1081) • Others are use-based, such as registers (Mc. Arthur: 1992, 1081); as Ferguson (1983) points out, registers Multidimensional registers based on the often have their own sets of grammatical and Heatmap of noun-register interaction for scaling the top of 25 lexical occurence of nouns in A GREAT DEAL OF conventions. • In this case, we are going to have a look at variation Cross-register of the two constructions acrossdistribution the five domains/registers in COCA. Multidimensional scaling of registers based on overall occurrence of for nouns in the Heatmap of noun-register interaction the top 25 two constructions. nouns in A GREAT MANY Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Comparison of constructional productivity • 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. Lexical growth curves indicating lexical richness Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Diachronic study Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Data • Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): • 406, 232, 024 words • 1810 -2009 • Domains/registers: • Fiction • Non-fiction • Popular magazines • Newspapers • Non-fictional books Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Overall distribution of the two constructions over time Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Tracking micro-changes using the motion chart 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Concluding remarks Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

Conclusions • • 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 Jensen CGS, Aalborg University

References • 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 (2 nd 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): 50139. • 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 (2 nd ed. ). Frederiksberg: Samfundsstudier. • Mc. Arthur, T. (1992). 'Variety. ' In T. Mc. Arthur (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 13 th 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. Kim Ebensgaard Jensen CGS, Aalborg University