What is Corpus Linguistics?

Corpus linguistics is one of the fastest-growing methodologies in contemporary linguistics. In a conversational format, this article answers a few questions that corpus linguists regularly face from linguists who have not used corpus-based methods so far. It discusses some of the central assumptions (‘formal distributional differences reflect functional differences’), notions (corpora, representativity and balancedness, markup and annotation), and methods of corpus linguistics (frequency lists, concordances, collocations), and discusses a few ways in which the discipline still needs to mature. At a recent LSA meeting ... [with an obvious bow to Frederick Newmeyer]  So, I hear you’re a corpus linguist. Interesting, I get to see more and more abstracts and papers and even job ads where experience with corpus-based methods are mentioned, but I actually know only very little about this area. So, what’s this all about?  Yes, it’s true, it’s really an approach that’s gaining more and more prominence in the field. In an editorial of the flagship journal of the discipline, Joseph (2004:382) actually wrote ‘we seem to be witnessing as well a shift in the way some linguists find and utilize data – many papers now use corpora as their primary data, and many use internet data’.  My impression exactly. Now, you say ‘approach’, but that’s something I’ve never really understood. Corpus linguistics – is that a theory or model or a method or what?  Good question and, as usual, people differ in their opinions. One well-known corpus linguist, for example, considers corpus linguistics – he calls it computer corpus linguistics – a ‘new philosophical approach [...]’ Leech (1992:106). Many others, including myself, consider it a method(ology), no more, but also no less (cf. McEnery et al. 2006:7f ). However, I don’t think this difference would result in many practical differences. Taylor (2008) discusses this issue in more detail, and for an amazingly comprehensive overview of how huge and diverse the field has become, cf. Lüdeling and Kytö (2008, 2009).  Hm ... But if you think corpus linguistics is a methodology, .... Well, let me ask you this: usually, linguists try to interpret the data they investigate against the background of some theory. Generative grammarians interpret their acceptability judgments within Government and Binding Theory or the Minimalist Program; some psycholinguists interpret their reaction time data within, for example, a connectionist interactive Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (2009): 1–17, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00149.x a 2009 The Author Journal Compilation a 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd activation model – now if corpus linguistics is only a methodology, then what is the theory within which you interpret your findings?  Again as usual, there’s no simple answer to this question; it depends .... There are different perspectives one can take. One is that many corpus linguists would perhaps even say that for them, linguistic theory is not of the same prime importance as it is in, for example, generative approaches. Correspondingly, I think it’s fair to say that a large body of corpus-linguistic work has a rather descriptive or applied focus and does actually not involve much linguistic theory. Another one is that corpus linguistic methods are a method just as acceptability judgments, experimental data, etc. and that linguists of every theoretical persuasion can use corpus data. If a linguist investigates how lexical items become more and more used as grammatical markers in a corpus, then the results are descriptive and ⁄ or most likely interpreted within some form of grammaticalization theory. If a linguist studies how German second language learners of English acquire the formation of complex clauses, then he will either just describe what he finds or interpret it within some theory of second language acquisition and so on... . There’s one other, more general way to look at it, though. I can of course not speak for all corpus linguists, but I myself think that a particular kind of linguistic theory is actually particularly compatible with corpus-linguistic methods. These are usage-based cognitive-linguistic theories, and they’re compatible with corpus linguistics in several ways. (You’ll find some discussion in Schönefeld 1999.) First, the units of language assumed in cognitive linguistics and corpus linguistics are very similar: what is a unit in probably most versions of cognitive linguistics or construction grammar is a symbolic unit or a construction, which is an element that covers morphemes, words, etc. Such symbolic units or constructions are often defined broadly enough to match nearly all of the relevant corpus-linguistic notions (cf. Gries 2008a): collocations, colligations, phraseologisms, .... Lastly, corpus-linguistic analyses are always based on the evaluation of some kind of frequencies, and frequency as well as its supposed mental correlate of cognitive entrenchment is one of several central key explanatory mechanisms within cognitively motivated approaches (cf., e.g. Bybee and Hopper 1997; Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Ellis 2002a,b; Goldberg 2006).  Wait a second – ‘corpus-linguistic analyses are always based on the evaluation of some kind of frequencies?’ What does that mean? I mean, most linguistic research I know is not about frequencies at all – if corpus linguistics is all about frequencies, then what does corpus linguistics have to contribute?  Well, many corpus linguists would probably not immediately agree to my statement, but I think it’s true anyway. There are two things to be clarified here. First, frequency of what? The answer is, there are no meanings, no functions, no concepts in corpora – corpora are (usually text) files and all you can get out of such files is distributional (or quantitative ⁄ statistical) information: ) frequencies of occurrence of linguistic elements, i.e. how often morphemes, words, grammatical patterns etc. occur in (parts of) a corpus, etc.; this information is usually represented in so-called frequency lists; ) frequencies of co-occurrence of these elements, i.e. how often morphemes occur with particular words, how often particular words occur in a certain grammatical 2 Stefan Th. Gries a 2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (2009): 1–17, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00149.x Journal Compilation a 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd construction, etc.; this information is mostly shown in so-called concordances in which all occurrences of, say, the word searched for are shown in their respective contexts.  1 is an example. As a linguist, you don’t just want to talk about frequencies or distributional information, which is why corpus linguists must make a particular fundamental assumption or a conceptual leap, from frequencies to the things linguists are interested in, but frequencies is where it all starts. Second, what kind of frequency? The answer is that the notion frequency doesn’t presuppose that the relevant linguistic phenomenon occurs in a corpus 100 or 1000 times – the notion of frequency also includes phenomena that occur only once or not at all. For example, there are statistical methods and models out there that can handle non-occurrence or estimate frequencies of unseen items. Thus, corpus linguistics is concerned with whether ) something (an individual element or the co-occurrence of more than one individual element) is attested in corpora; i.e. whether the observed frequency (of occurrence or co-occurrence) is 0 or larger; ) something is attested in corpora more often than something else; i.e. whether an observed frequency is larger than the observed frequency of something else; ) something is observed more or less often than you would expect by chance [this is a more profound issue than it may seem at first; Stefanowitsch (2006) discusses this in more detail]. This also implies that statistical methods can play a large part in corpus linguistics, but this is one area where I think the discipline must still mature or evolve.  A concordance output from AntConc 3.2.2w.  (2009): 1–17, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2009.00149.x Journal Compilation a 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd  What do you mean?  Well, this is certainly a matter of debate, but I think that a field that developed in part out of a dissatisfaction concerning methods and data in linguistics ought to be very careful as far as its own methods and data are concerned. It is probably fair to say that many linguists turned to corpus data because they felt there must be more to data collection than researchers intuiting acceptability judgments about what one can say and what one cannot; cf. Labov (1975) and, say, Wasow and Arnold (2005:1485) for discussion and exemplification of the mismatch between the reliability of judgment data by prominent linguists of that time and the importance that was placed on them, as well as McEnery and Wilson (2001: Ch. 1), Sampson (2001: Chs 2, 8, and 10), and the special issue of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (CLLT ) 5.1 (2008) on corpus linguistic positions regarding many of Chomsky’s claims in general and the method of acceptability judgments in particular. However, since corpus data only provide distributional information in the sense mentioned earlier, this also means that corpus data must be evaluated with tools that have been designed to deal with distributional information and the discipline that provides such tools is statistics. And this is actually completely natural: psychologists and psycholinguists undergo comprehensive training in experimental methods and the statistical tools relevant to these methods so it’s only fair that corpus linguists do the same in their domain. After all, it would be kind of a double standard to on the one hand bash many theoretical li