國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6.3 Limitations
The findings in this study are subject to at least three limitations. First, the current study was unable to consider the overlaps of categories even though a two-tier categorization was designed for semantic relations with the attempt to minimize this effect. Semantic categories based on WordNet would still confront the overlapping issue. For example, it is difficult to assign the word mockery to either the ‘cognition‘
or ‘action‘ category. For such cases where linguistic contexts cannot resolve the dilemma, a specific rule would be arbituarily set. In our corpus, all the words of communication like mockery and joke would be assigned to the ‘cognition‘ category.
This limitation means that the distribution patterns need to be interpreted with caution.
Secondly, a limitation lies with the method of data analysis. The scope of this study was limited to noun phrases and gerunds found in the of-constructions. Some commonly occurring colligation patterns were neglected. For example, sentences containing relative clauses headed with whether or what (e.g., on the question of whether the budget should be balanced) were not investigated, even though they are occasionally encountered in the corpus. In addition, the current study excluded the analysis of those linguistic elements preceding the premodifiers such as determiners and pronouns. This means their referential functions could have been underestimated in this study. Another limitation of this study is derived from the narrowed scope on nominal groups, N1 and N2. Future work may apply the semantic relations analysis established here to other grammatical categories co-occurring with of including [adjective + of + noun] (e.g., capable of murder), [verb + of + noun] (e.g., died of cancer), [determiner + of + noun] (e.g., some of the tests, any of these domains), and [pronoun + of + noun] (e.g., anyone of the seven dwarfs, someone of authority).
Future research might address these weaknesses and explore further.
6.4 Closing Remarks
This study sets out with the aim of assessing the actual use and functions of the of -construction in academic writing. Our multivariate analyses demonstrate that
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
semantic categories of the nominal groups along cannot fully capture the various meanings of the of -construction in the corpus data. We suggest that to understand the of -construction we need to pay attention to their semantic relations. Here, semantic relations are not restricted to the prototypical lexical relations, such as synonymy and antonymy, but to the actual relations held between the meanings of two words which include part-whole, quality, action, and derivative relations. We also used the covarying collexeme analysis with a huge amount of data to identify the most prototypical instances of of -constructions, which are proper names. The most typical modification pattern of the of -construction was also identified to conform to minimize reading effort. When the of -construction takes up the object position, it is more likely to be postmodified but not premodified. When the of -construction takes up the subject position, it is likely to be premodified at N1 but not postmodified. These findings contrast a syntactical difference posed by the of -construction. In terms of pedagogical implications, as demonstrated in this chapter, a training for raising L2 novice writers to recognize semantic relations exhibited by different of -constructions might facilitate learner’s better grasping of abstract notions, particularly those in technical terms. Not only because of is the most commonly found English prepositions in most corpora (e.g., Brown Corpus, British National Corpus), it is particularly important in the academic written genre. As shown in this study, the of -construction can have three interesting roles to carry out different functions: (1) as an agent demoter to facilitate hedging; (2) as a cohesion device; (3) as an evaluative device for the writer to take a stance.
Future work may consider genral or disciplinary variations at much finer levels.
For example, our preliminary finding shows that ‘action’ of -constructions are commonly used in a passive voice to describe how a method was carried out in scientific writing (e.g., The counting of coloured spots, each representing one cell, was done with a stereo microscope…HU2-2349). An even more important extension to the present work is to examine the linguistic patterns of of -constructions used by L2 academic writing at the tertiary and graduate levels. By comparing the functions of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
actual uses by L2 novice academic writers with the professionals, it would be clearer if any teaching intervention would be necessary. In an article on teaching prepositions and particles, Liu and Zhan (2018), for example, point out that in addition to the polysemous nature of English prepositions, sometimes different prepositions are used to mean the same thing (e.g., love for movies and love of movies). In other words, in future investigations, it might be possible to compare of with for or other prepositions to see how they overlap in terms of their meanings. Further work can also be carried out a systematic investigation specifically on the presence and absence of a determiner preceding N1. In the corpus data, we found different types of determiners are used before N1 (e.g., a discussion of, discussion of, the discussion of ). It would be interesting to examine further their subtle variation in meanings in different context.
Finally, the findings on multiple of -constructions from this study are only preliminary.
Further research is needed to account for the varying types of semantic relations in the layers of multiple of -constructions.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
Aarts, B. (1998). Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96(1), 117–158.
Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92.
Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3–14.
Almeida, M. B., & Baracho, R. A. (2014). A theoretical investigation about the notion of parts and wholes: Mereological and meronymic relations. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: Research Trends, 8, 1–41.
Alvarez, I., & REGO, M. (2001). Encapsulation and prospection in written scientific English. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 9, 81–101.
Atkins, B. T. S. (1987). Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the third annual conference of the uw centre for the new Oxford English dictionary (pp. 17–36).
Banks, D. (1998). Vague quantification in the scientific journal article. Asp, la revue du GERAS, 19, 17–27.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Clark, V. (2002). Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures. In T. Fanego, M. Lépez-Couso, & J. Perez-Guerra (Eds.), English historical morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Sanitago de Compostela, 7-11 September 2000 (pp. 43–66).
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing.
In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English:
Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99–132). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of spoken and written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Blasius, J., & Greenacre, M. (2006). Correspondence analysis and related methods in practice. In J. Blasius & M. Greenacre (Eds.), Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods (pp. 3–40). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2008). If-conditionals in medical discourse:
From theory to disciplinary practice. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 191–205.
Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1984). The similarity and diversity of semantic relations. Memory & Cognition, 12(2), 134–141.
Chan, A. Y. (2010). Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of hong kong cantonese ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 295–319.
Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery …’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326.
Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331.
Chen, L., & Chung, S.-F. (2014). Of -constructions in the predicate of demonstrate and show in academic discourse. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 11(1), 105–144.
Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
with networks and prototypes. Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics, 17, 259–276.
Chuang, F.-Y., & Nesi, H. (2006). An analysis of formal errors in a corpus of L2 English produced by Chinese students. Corpora, 1(2), 251–271.
Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam/New York:
Rodopi.
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing:
Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–
423.
Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics.
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cutting, J. (2012). Vague language in conference abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 283–293.
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis.
System, 26(2), 163–174.
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle.
Text, 20(1), 29–62.
Evens, M., Litowitz, B. E., Markowitz, J. A., Smith, R. N., & Werner, O. (1980).
Lexical-semantic relations: A comparative survey. Edmonton, AB: Linguistic Research.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Fellbaum, C. (2002). On the semantics of troponymy. In R. Green, C. Bean,
& S. H. Mayeng (Eds.), The semantics of relationships: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 23–34). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1967). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–346.
Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling nouns in academic English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, L. (2008). Corpora and context in professional writing. In V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 115–127).
London/New York: Routledge.
Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 83–101).
London/New York: Routledge.
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 2:
Nouns and adjectives. London: Harper Collins.
Glynn, D. (2014a). Correspondence analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–486). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Glynn, D. (2014b). Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics.
In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (p. 307-343). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56–75.
Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3–18).
Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research.
TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538–546.
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136.
Gries, S. T. (2004). Hcfa 3.2-a program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/
Gries, S. T. (2007). Coll.analysis3.2. a program for R. Retrieved from http://www .linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen
Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative.
In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236).
Stanford: CSLI.
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 205–220.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hasselgård, H. (2016). The way of the world: The colligational framework “the N1 of the N2” and its Norwegian correspondences. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(3), 55–79.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2007). Language errors in the genre-based writing of advanced academic ESL students. RELC Journal, 38(2), 171–198.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Hoffmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London/New York: Routledge.
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., & Berglund-Prytz, Y. (2008). Corpus linguistics with BNCWeb: A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Hunston, G., S & Francis. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. Advances in written text analysis, 191–218.
Hunston, S. (2010). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse.
Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–
121). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing.
In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 125–140). London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173–192.
Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21.
Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (2016). Introduction. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 1–14). New York:
Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39–63.
Ivanič, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. IRAL, 29(2), 93–114.
Keizer, E. (2007). The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, G. D. (1987). Quantification and the use of English: A case study of one aspect of the learner’s task. Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 264–286.
Kennedy, G. D. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
Khoo, C. S., & Na, J.-C. (2006). Semantic relations in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 157–228.
Kim, J.-B., & Sells, P. (2015). English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 51(1), 41–73.
Kjellmer, G. (1994). A dictionary of English collocations: Based on the Brown corpus.
Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreyer, R. (2003). Genitive and of -construction in modern written English:
Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Linguistics, 8(2), 169–207.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1982). Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive.
Language, 22–80.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Standford: Stanford university press.
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18.
Lee, D. Y. W. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the bnc jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 37–72.
Lehmann, C. (2006). Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyama (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (pp. 153–174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation.
Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Lyngfelt, B., & Solstad, T. (2006). Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 vols.). London/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. London/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Specific Purposes, 10(1), 15–33.
Master, P. (2001). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific research articles.
Academic writing in context, 169–181.
Miller, G. (1998). Nouns in WordNet. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Wordnet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 22–46). Cambridge/London: MIT Press.
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.
Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., & Girju, R. (2004). Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL workshop on computational lexical semantics (pp. 60–67).
Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.
Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola &
A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3–
18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nastase, V., & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun-modifier semantic relations.
In Fifth international workshop on computational semantics (IWCS-5) (pp. 285–
301).
Newman, J. (2011). Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 11(2), 521–559.
Nikiforidou, K. (1991). The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–206.
Oakey, D. (2002). Formulaic language in English academic writing: A corpus-based study of the formal and functional variation of a lexical phrase in different academic disciplines. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 111–129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (p. 191-225). London: Longman.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., & Leech, G. (8). G. and svartvik, j. 1985. a comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.
R Development CORE TEAM. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Renouf, A., & Sinclair, J. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer
& B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp. 128–143). London:
Longman.
Rock, I., & Palmer, S. (1990). The legacy of gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 263(6), 84–91.
Rosenbach, A. (2014). English genitive variation–the state of the art. English Language
& Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262.
Schmid, H.-J. (1999). Cognitive effects of shell nouns. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik,
& L. Noordman (Eds.), Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science series 4 (pp. 111–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Schmid, H.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts &
H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 531–577.
Schönthal, D. (2016). On the multifaceted nature of English of-NPs: A theoretical, corpus, cotextual and cognitive approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Cardiff University.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. M. (1993). Written discourse structure. In J. M. Sinclair, H. M, & F. G (Eds.), Techniques of description (pp. 6–31). London: Routledge.
Smith, N. (2003). Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, &
F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 241–266). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 413–444). Berlin/New
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 413–444). Berlin/New