Socio-Psycholinguistic Features of ‘till’/‘until’ Functioning in Present-Day English (Corpus-Based and Corpus-Driven Research)

Keywords: socio-psycholinguistic factors, discourse type, text domain, age, gender, social class


The aim of the research. The paper is to clarify the role of socio-psycholinguistic factors of lexical units ‘till’/‘until’ functioning in present-day English. The research is focused on the lexical units ‘till’/‘until’, which are the objects of functional transposition, as a result of which both units are determined and function as prepositions and conjunctions, are defined by the identical vocabulary definitions, derive from the same part of speech – preposition and undergo functional transposition into the category of conjunction. Nevertheless, they are characterized by a diverse level of institutionalization in the language, what is proved by the statistical data. Therefore we put forward the hypothesis that the divergences in applying the units depend on the socio-psycholinguistic factors, which characterize the speech at the present stage of the language development and determine the institutionalization level of any transpositional process.

Methods. The analysis is represented by the corpus-based and corpus-driven research and is grounded on the data, retrieved from the British National Corpus (BNC) as the most balanced and representative source of written and oral extracts of the English language. Under the research, socio-psycholinguistic factors are divided into linguistic, viz. discourse type, text type, derived text type, text domain, context-governed text domain and type of interaction, the level of difficulty, and socio-psychological factors, viz. age and gender of an author (for written discourse), age, gender, and social class of a speaker and respondent (for spoken discourse).

Results and conclusion. The obtained data testify that there are almost no difference between the preposition and conjunction ‘till’, except for the authors’ and speakers’ age. The figures of the categories prove the further expansion of the preposition ‘till’. The preposition and conjunction ‘until’ are characterized by more profound divergences, in particular, on the side of linguistic factors. Taking into account the fact that socio-psychological factors determine the linguistic peculiarities of the language units in discourse, it is worth stating that the preposition ‘until’ is characterized by the lowest number of points of intersection with other units under study, which predetermines its potential for further analysis from the perspective of modern psycholinguistics.


Download data is not yet available.


Белянин, В.П. (2009). Психолингвистика. Москва : Флинта.

Ковбаско, Ю.Г. (2021). Функціональна транспозиція: емпіричне дослідження локативно-темпоральних прийменників, прислівників та сполучників в англійській мові ІХ-ХХІ століть. (Монографія). Одеса : Видавничий дім “Гельветика”.

Литвинова, Ю.А. (2016). Лексикографические, текстовые и психолингвистические методы семантической дифференциации синонимов. Психолингвистика и лексикография, 3, 32–38.

Маклакова, Е. А. (2017). О проблеме выявления синонимических отношений в лексике. Психолингвистика и лексикография, 4, 147–155.

Солоухина, O. (2016). Психолингвистические параметры, влияющие на называние объектов и действий. Ю. И. Александров & К.В. Анохин (Отв. ред.), Тезисы докладов 7-й Международной конференции по когнитивной науке (г. Светлогорск, 20-24 июня 2016 г.), (c. 557–558). Светлогорск : ИП РАН.

Biber, D. (2012). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 1–34).

Davelaar, E., & Besner, D. (1988). Word identification: Imageability, semantics, and the content-functor distinction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Experimental Psychology, 40(4), 789–799.

Ellis, N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language learning, 43(4), 559–617.

Francis, N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.

Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development, 2, 301–334.

Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N. C. (2015). Statistical Measures for usage-based linguistics. A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 65(1), 228–255.

Klein, D., & Murphy, G. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 259–282.

Kovbasko, Yu (2021). Linguistic and socio-psycholinguistic distribution of ‘till’ in present day English. Mendeley Data. V1. doi: 10.17632/czbx6xg7fb.1

Mätzig, S., & Druks, J. (2009). Noun and verb differences in picture naming: past studies and new evidence. Cortex, 45(6), 738–758.

Shabitha, M., & Mekala, S. (2013). The impact of psycholinguistic factors on second language acquisition. The IUP Journal of English Studies, 8(1), 7–14.

Storjohann, P. (2005). Corpus-driven vs. corpus-based approach to the study of relational patterns. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics (Birmingham, 2005). Birmingham : University of Birmingham.

The British National Corpus. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at work. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Towell, R., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). The role of psycholinguistic factors in the development of fluency amongst advance learners of French. In Jean-Marc Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a Foreign Language (pp. 210–239).

Abstract views: 148
PDF Downloads: 123
How to Cite
Kovbasko, Y., & Ikalyuk, L. (2021). Socio-Psycholinguistic Features of ‘till’/‘until’ Functioning in Present-Day English (Corpus-Based and Corpus-Driven Research). PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 30(2), 134-152.