1. コーパスを用いた言語分析と統計
Collostructional Analysis とは何か？
TwiFULL 関西
＠神戸大学人文学研究科
20130327
発表者：Yuzo Morishita (@pathos95606)

2. 発表の構成
1. はじめに
2. 言語分析と量的研究
3. フィッシャーの正確確率検定
4. Collostructional Analysis
5. Bybee (2010) による批判
6. Gries (2012) による Bybee (2010) への反論
7. 大規模コーパスを用いた具体的分析
1

3. 自己紹介
英語の文法をコーパス基盤で量的・質的に研究
統計も少しだけ
以下のような構文について研究してます
(1) a. James came running up the stairs. (BNC-FRS)
b. We went shopping in Brighton. (BNC-FB9)
c. He sent the clerk hurrying into the back room to get a
dark grey suit. (BNC-CDN)
d. She ran after him, calling his name. (BNC-A0N)
e. Dan walked from the room, his head reeling. (BNC-FAB)
2

4. はじめに

5. はじめに
認知言語学では...
実験やコーパス頻度に基づく研究が増加
統計解析が必要な研究も増加
用法基盤モデル (e.g., Langacker 1990, 2000) の影響
近年、日本でも目立つようになってきた統計手法
Collostructional Analysis (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003)
手法の妥当性に関してほぼ無批判 (cf. Bybee 2010)
3

6. 言語分析と量的研究

7. 言語分析と量的研究
コーパス研究の発展
コーパス研究の多様化
Sinclair (1991) の「コーパス駆動型研究」
Kennedy (1998) の「コーパス検証型研究」
WaC (Web as Corpus) の時代
4

8. 言語分析と量的研究
言語分析と量的研究の歴史
本格的な量的言語研究の萌芽
(e.g., Chao 1950: (Zipf 1935) の Review
Hockett 1953: (Shannon and Warren 1949) の Review)
類型論的研究
(e.g., Haspelmath 2008)
認知・機能系の研究
(e.g., Bybee 1985, Baayen 1993, Bybee and Hopper 2001)
問題点指摘タイプ (e.g., Johnson 1999, Kilgaliff 2005)
5

9. 言語分析と量的研究
2000年代：言語分析のとコーパス研究の融合
構文文法 (Construction Grammar)と量的研究
結果構文におけるフレームと量的研究 (Boas 2001)
二重目的語構文での語と構文の統計解析
(Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003)
スペイン語の構文研究 (Bybee and Eddington 2006)
6

10. 言語分析と量的研究
構文文法 (Construction Grammar)
(e.g., Fillmore 1988, Fillmore et al. 1988, Goldberg 1995)
語と構文の間に明確な性質の違いを求めない
(cf. Grimshaw 1990: Argument Structure,
Levin and Rappaport 1995: Lexical Conceptual Structure)
7

11. フィッシャーの正確確率検定
(Fisher's exact test)

12. フィッシャーの正確確率検定
カイ2乗検定
Table 1: Chi-square test
不正解 正解 !
Group A 21 (≒ 28.4) 433 (≒ 425.6) 454
Group B 44 (≒ 36.6) 540 (≒ 549.4) 584
! 65 975 1,038
#2= 3.68; df=1; p = 0.055
期待値の計算 #2値の計算
65 2
454 × ≒ 28.4 （実測値 ­ 期待値）
1,038 #2 = !
975 期待値
454 × ≒ 425.6
1,038
584 × 65
≒ 36.6
1,038
975 ≒
584 × 549.4
1,038 8

13. フィッシャーの正確確率検定
カイ2乗検定
Table 1: Chi-square test
不正解 正解 !
Group A 21 (≒ 28.4) 433 (≒ 425.6) 454
Group B 44 (≒ 36.6) 540 (≒ 549.4) 584
! 65 975 1,038
#2= 3.68; df=1; p = 0.055
chi-squared(1) distribution
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
density
0 2 4 6 8 10
8
chi-sq

14. 統計の基礎
フィッシャーの正確確率検定 (Fisher's exact test)
chi-squared(1) distribution
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
density
0 2 4 6 8 10
chi-sq Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1980-1962)
理由：特定の分布を前提とする不正確性
10

15. 統計の基礎
フィッシャーの正確確率検定 (Fisher's exact test)
ありとあらゆる組み合せの可能性を考える
全ての組み合せのうち
現在の結果に当てはまる組み合せが生じる確率を計算
組み合せ（Combination）を計算するので計算量が膨大に...
6!
e.g. 6 C 2 = 2!(6−2)!
Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1980-1962)
11

16. 統計の基礎
フィッシャーの正確確率検定 (Fisher's exact test)
The R Project for Statistical Computing
http://www.r-project.org/
> fisher.test(matrix(c(21, 433, 44, 540), nrow = 2))
Fisher's Exact Test for Count Data
data: matrix(c(21, 433, 44, 540), nrow = 2)
p-value < 0.06992
alternative hypothesis: true odds ratio is not equal to 1
95 percent confidence interval:
0.330999 1.041104
sample estimates:
odds ratio
0.5955003
> fisher.test(matrix(c(21, 433, 44, 540), nrow = 2))$p.value
[1] 0.06992
12
cf.

17. Collostructional Approach

18. Collostructional Approach
構文と語の結合度を調べる統計的手法 (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003)
collostruction < collocation + construction
Table 2: Collostructional Analysis
Construction c Other constructions Row totals
Verb v w x w+x
Other verbs y z y+z
Column totals a+c b+d a+b+c+d
Table3: Observed frequencies of give and the ditransitive in the ICE-GB
(Gries 2012: 480)
ditransitive construction ¬ditransitive construction Row totals
give 461 (9) 699 (1,151) 1,160
¬give 574 (1,026) 136,930 (136,478) 137,504
Column totals 1,035 137,629 138,664
13

19. Collostructional Approach
二重目的語構文における分析結果とその意義
Table 4: Collexemes most strongly attracted to the ditransitive construction
(Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003: 229)
Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength
give (461) 0 allocate (4) 2.91E-06
tell (128) 1.6E-127 wish (9) 3.11E-06
send (64) 7.26E-68 accord (3) 8.15E-06
offer (43) 3.31E-49 pay (13) 2.34E-05
show (49) 2.23E-33 hand (5) 3.01E-05
cost (20) 1.12E-22 guarantee (4) 4.72E-05
teach (15) 4.32E-16 buy (9) 6.35E-05
award (18) 1.36E-11 assign (3) 2.61E-04
allow (18) 1.12E-10 charge (4) 3.02E-04
lend (7) 2.85E-09 cause (8) 5.56E-04
deny (8) 4.5E-09 ask (12) 6.28E-04
owe (6) 2.67E-08 afford (4) 1.08E-03
promise (7) 3.23E-08 cook (3) 3.34E-03
earn (7) 2.13E-07 spare (2) 3.5E-03
grant (5) 1.33E-06 drop (3) 2.16E-02 14

20. Collostructional Approach
Goldberg (1995: 38)
A: Central Sense: Agent successfully causes recipient to receive patient
e.g. "give", "pass", "throw", "toss", "bring", "take"...
(2) John gave Mary a book.
B: Conditions of Satisfaction imply that agent causes recipient to receive patient
e.g. "guarantee", "promise", "owe"...
(3) Chris promised Pat a car.
C: Agent causes recipient not to receive patient
e.g. "refuse", "deny"...
(4) Mary denied her sister a cake.
D: ...
E: ...
F: ...
15

21. Collostructional Approach
二重目的語構文における分析結果とその意義
Table 4: Collexemes most strongly attracted to the ditransitive construction
(Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003: 229)
Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength
give (461) 0 allocate (4) 2.91E-06
tell (128) 1.6E-127 wish (9) 3.11E-06
send (64) 7.26E-68 accord (3) 8.15E-06
offer (43) 3.31E-49 pay (13) 2.34E-05
show (49) 2.23E-33 hand (5) 3.01E-05
cost (20) 1.12E-22 guarantee (4) 4.72E-05
teach (15) 4.32E-16 buy (9) 6.35E-05
award (18) 1.36E-11 assign (3) 2.61E-04
allow (18) 1.12E-10 charge (4) 3.02E-04
lend (7) 2.85E-09 cause (8) 5.56E-04
deny (8) 4.5E-09 ask (12) 6.28E-04
owe (6) 2.67E-08 afford (4) 1.08E-03
promise (7) 3.23E-08 cook (3) 3.34E-03
earn (7) 2.13E-07 spare (2) 3.5E-03
grant (5) 1.33E-06 drop (3) 2.16E-02 16

22. Bybee (2010) による批判

23. Bybee (2010) による批判
批判の論点
- 粗頻度 (raw frequencies) で十分では？
- クロス表右下の数字は必要？どうやって数値化？
Table 3: Observed frequencies of give and the ditransitive in the ICE-GB
ditransitive construction ¬ditransitive construction Row totals
give 461 (9) 699 (1,151) 1,160
¬give 574 (1,026) 136,930 (136,478) 137,504
Column totals 1,035 137,629 138,664
17

24. Bybee (2010) による批判
Bybee and Eddington (2006) を基に Collostruction Strength を計算
内省と Collostructional Approach の結果を比較
Table 5: Adjective with quedarse 'become' (Bybee 2010: 100)
High Collostructional Frequency in Corpus
Acceptability Strength Construction Frequency
High Frequency
dormido 'asleep' 42 79.34 28 161
sorpendido 'surprised' 42 17.57 7 92
quieto 'still/calm' 39 85.76 29 129
Low Frequency Related
perplejo 'paralyzed' 40 2.62 1 20
paralizado 'paralyzed' 35 2.49 1 1
pasmado 'amazed' 30 2.72 1 16
Low Frequency Unrelated
desnutrido 'undernourished' 17 3.23 1 5
orgullosismo 'proud' 6 3.92 1 1
18

25. Gries (2012) による Bybee (2010) への反論

26. Gries (2012) による Bybee (2010) への反論
Figure 1: The comparison of a frequency- vs and AM-based approach (Gries 2012: 502)
19

27. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証

28. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証
Gries (2012) や Bybee (2010) の研究は小規模コーパス
Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003)：ICE-GB (1 million words)
Bybee (2010)：A spoken (1.1 million) and written (1 million) corpora
大規模コーパス利用への展望 (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004: 235)
大規模コーパスを利用した研究の問題点
機械的に収集可能な現象だけに研究が制限される可能性
統計的分析への影響
20

29. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証
British National Corpus (BNC) を利用
約1億語：ICE-GB の約100倍、Bybee (2010) の約50倍
註）BYU-BNC (http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc) は似て非なるコーパス
扱うのは以下の構文
(5) a. He sent the clerk hurrying into the back room to get
a dark grey suit. (BNC-CDN)
b. A series of small explosions one morning brought Alec
running out of the top of the steps. (BNC-B1X)
c. A day's yacht charter took us threading through the islands
(BNC-BPJ)
d. My boyfriend Fisher Stevens will have to drag me
kicking and screaming out of the house. (BNC-CH2)21

30. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証
分析対象と方法
定形の動詞と非定形 (-ing形) の動詞の collostruction strength
Verbs of Sending and Carrying (Levin 1993: 132-137)
e.g. "airmail", "FedEX", "pass", "send", "roll", "bring", "take", "drive"
NP V NP V-ing P(P) という形式を持つもの全て
結果：303 例
動詞の頻度検索：語彙素タグ e.g. hw="send" pos="VERB" (sent, sends, sending, etc.)
全構文数：センテンス・タグ e.g. <s n="777">
22

31. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証
Table 6: Collostructional Approach to the construction
The Construction Other constructions Row totals
crashing 38 2,139 2,177
Other verbs 265 6,023,842 6,024,107
Column totals 303 6,025,981 6,026,284
p=3.469382e-83
log103.46938e-83
= - 82.460
23

32. Collostructional Approach
Table 7: Collexemes strongly and weakly attracted to the construction
Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength Collexeme (n) Collostruction strength
crashing (38) 82.460 banging (1) 1.195
scurrying (19) 52.117 raining (1) 1.186
sprawling (13) 33.354 smashing (1) 1.153
flying (21) 27.672 scattering (1) 1.131
tumbling (10) 20.423 marching (1) 1.075
rushing (12) 18.552 floating (1) 1.046
kicking and screaming (5) 15.748 sailing (1) 0.908
arcing (3) 15.182 sliding (1) 0.878
reeling (6) 13.043 sinking (1) 0.850
hurrying (8) 12.184 swinging (1) 0.828
screaming (8) 11.684 pouring (1) 0.797
hurtling (5) 11.593 backing (1) 0.695
scuttling (5) 11.576 escaping (1) 0.634
spinning (5) 7.429 shooting (1) 0.506
billowing (5) 6.959 falling (1) 0.000
24

33. 大規模コーパスでの分析による検証
80
60
Collostruction_Strength
40
20
0
0 10 20 30
Raw_Frequency
Figure 2: Correlation between Collostruction Strength and Raw Frequency
25

34. REFERENCES
Baayen, Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In G. E. Booij
and J. van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of morphology. 181-208. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Boas, Hans C. 2001. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI
Publications.
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and
form. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
---. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
--- and David Eddington. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of
'becoming'. Language 82:2. 323-355.
--- and Paul Hopper. (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1950. LanguageReview of Human behavior and the principle of
least effort: An introduction to human ecology by George Kingsley Zipf. Language
26:3. 394-401.

35. REFERENCES
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of "Construction Grammar". Proceedings
of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 35-55.
---, Paul Kay, Mary Catherine O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in
Grammatical Constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64:3. 501-538.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to
argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gries. 2012. Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-
based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 11:3.
477-510.
Gries Stefan Th., Beate Hampe, and Doris Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence:
Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and
constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16:4. 635-676.
---. 2010. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and
constructions. In Sally Rice and John Newman (eds.) Empirical and Experimental
Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications,
Center for the Study of Language and Information.

36. REFERENCES
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical
asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1. 1-33.
Hockett, Charles F. 1953. Review of the mathematical theory of communication by
Claude L. Shannon and warren Weaver. Language 29:1. 69-93.
Johnson, Douglas H. 1999. The insignificance of statistical significance testing. The
Journal of Wildlife Management 63:3. 763-772.
Kennedy, Graeme. 1998. An introduction to corpus linguistics. London; New York:
Longman.
Kilgaliff. 2005. Language is never ever ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 3:2. 263-276.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. A usage-based model. In Ronald Langacker. Concept,
image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
261-288.
---. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer
(eds.) Usage-based models of language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications, Center
for the Study of Language and Information. 1-63.

37. REFERENCES
Levin Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical
semantics interface. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Shannon, Claude L. and Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of
communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford; Tokyo: Oxford
University Press.
Stefanowitsch and Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words
and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8:2. 209-243.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935[1949]. Human behavior and the principle of least effort:
An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press.