4.1 Article

Generating hypotheses for alternations at low and intermediate levels of schematicity. The use of Memory-based Learning

Journal

LINGUISTICS VANGUARD
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 305-319

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2021-0081

Keywords

alternation; corpus; data-driven; hypothesis generation; Memory-based Learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

According to usage-based linguistics, language variation addresses the functional need of language users, which depends on the lexical realization of different constructions. This paper develops a data-driven approach to study language variation and applies it to investigate the Dutch naar-alternation.
According to usage-based linguistics, language variation addresses a functional need of the language user. That functional need may be dependent on the lexical realization of the varying constructions. For instance, while it may be useful to have an argument structure alternation express a particular semantic distinction for particular verbs or themes, that same distinction may be less relevant for other verbs or themes. As such, it has been argued that language variation should be investigated at low levels of schematicity, e.g. by studying argument structure alternations separately for various verbs, themes, etc. In this paper, we develop a data-driven procedure to do so, based on Memory-based Learning (MBL). The procedure focusses on generating hypotheses, is scalable, and can work with small datasets. It consists of three steps: (i) choosing features for the MBL classifier, (ii) running MBL analyses and selecting which analyses to put under further scrutiny, and (iii) inspecting which features were most useful in predicting the choice of variant in these analyses. Finally, the hypotheses that are inferred from these features are put to the test on separate data. As an example study, we investigate the Dutch naar-alternation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available