Читать книгу Collocations, Creativity and Constructions - Cordula Glass - Страница 6

Box 2.1: Entry for the lemma do from Thousand-Word English (Palmer / Hornby 1937: 43)

Box 2.2: Lexical functions of phraseological phenomena according to Mel’čuk (1995: 186)

Box 5.1: Test item from CollJudge – creative / simple variant of cook the tea / meal

Box 5.2: Code and example from the non-linguistic distractor task (Appendix I)

Box 6.1: Items of Gradual Acceptance (L1)

Box 6.4: Items with an overall tendency of receding positive evaluation (L1)

Box 6.5: CollMatch’s pseudo-collocations according pattern (L1)

Box 6.7: Items of Gradual Acceptance (L2)

Box 6.8: Items of Peaked Acceptance and Dented Acceptance (L2)

Box 6.10: Items with an overall tendency of receding positive evaluation (L2)

Box 6.11: CollMatch’s pseudo-collocations according pattern (L2)

Box 6.13: Items of Academic Rejection (L2)

Figure 1.1: Scope of this Study

Figure 2.1: Mel’čuk’s (1989, 1995) process of text production compared to de Saussure’s (1916 / 1967: 76–79) linguistic sign

Figure 2.2: Typology of word combinations (based on Hausmann 1984 and Bartsch 2004: 38)

Figure 2.3: Form and function levels of collocational construction, taking scornful tone as an example

Figure 4.1: The productivity cline according to Braðdal (2008: 172)

Figure 4.2: A stage model for the acquisition of formulaic language (Wray / Perkins 2000)

Figure 4.3: A dynamic model for the cognitive development of collocations (DMCDC)

Graph 6.1: Schematic overview of CollMatch’s collocations and pseudo-collocations evaluated by adult native speakers of English (see Appendix II for a detailed overview)

Graph 6.2: Example for Gradual Acceptance (GA) – L1 acceptability rating for drop hints

Graph 6.3: Example for Peaked Acceptance (PA) – L1 acceptability rating for meet a need

Graph 6.4: Example for Steady Acceptance (StA) – L1 acceptability rating for pull a face

Graph 6.5: Example for Academic Acceptance (AcA) – L1 acceptability rating for adopt an approach

Graph 6.6: Example for Dented Acceptance (DA) – L2 acceptability rating for make a move

Graph 7.1: Example for Preference of Established Variants (PREF) – L1 acceptability rating for pull a face

Graph 7.2: Example for Overall Acceptance (OA) – L1 acceptability rating for lend support / advice

Graph 7.3: Example for Contextual Acceptance (CONTEXT) – L1 acceptability rating for commit a crime / mistake

Table 2.1: Lexical and grammatical relations (based on Halliday 1966: 152–153)

Table 2.2: Corpus-based association measures for “Humpty Dumpty’s collocations”

Table 2.3: Categorisation of lexical word combinations according to Cowie (1983: xii-xiii) with examples from Howarth (1996:15–16)

Table 2.4: Categorisation of open collocations (Cowie / Howarth 1995: 83)

Table 2.5: List of noun collocates for scornful according to the BNC

Table 5.1: Typology of linguistic methodologies (partly based on Siyanova / Schmitt 2008)

Table 5.2: Basic contingency table for observed and expected frequencies (based on Evert 2009: 1231)

Table 5.3: Ten most frequent verb collocates for the lemma crime according to MI, z-score, t-score and log-likelihood (BNC)

Table 5.4: Distribution of participants across languages and age groups

Table 6.1: Overview of group results from CollMatch based on Gyllstad (2007)

Table 6.2: Patterns identified in CollMatch based on each L1 group’s acceptance scores

Table 6.3: Overview of items with the same acceptance pattern or a similar acceptance score in adult L1 and L2 evaluations

Table 6.4: Patterns identified in CollMatch based on each L2 group’s acceptance scores

Table 6.5: Overview of group results from CollMatch in year 5 (Germany) and year 7 (Great Britain)

Table 6.6: Comparison of group results from CollMatch in year 5 (L2) and year 7 (L1)

Table 7.1: Items in CollJudge in their four different variants (original version of each item in bold print)

Table 7.2: CollMatch results according to the four test variants of CollJudge for adult L1 and L2 participants

Table 7.3: L1 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Preference of Established Variants sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.4: L1 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Overall Acceptance sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.5: L1 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Contextual Acceptance sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.6: L1 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with an unclear pattern sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.7: L2 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Established Variants sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.8: L2 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Overall Acceptance sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.9: L2 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Contextual Acceptance sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.10: L2 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with the pattern of Contextual Influence sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.11: L2 speakers’ qualitative evaluation of items with an unclear pattern sorted according to age and variant

Table 7.12: Raw frequencies and association measures for CollJudge Items

Table 7.13: Contextual influence (Δp) on the evaluation of native and non-native speakers of English for established and creative variants within CollJudge