Abstract
Over the past years, multifactorial corpus-based explorations of alternations in grammar have become an accepted major tool in cognitively oriented corpus linguistics. For example, prototype theory as a theory of similarity-based and inherently probabilistic linguistic categorization has received support from studies showing that alternating constructions and items often occur with probabilities influenced by prototypical formal, semantic or contextual factors. In this paper, I analyze a low-frequency alternation effect in German noun inflection in terms of prototype theory, based on strong hypotheses from the existing literature that I integrate into an established theoretical framework of usage-based probabilistic morphology, which allows us to account for similarity effects even in seemingly regular areas of the grammar. Specifically, the so-called weak masculine nouns in German, which follow an unusual pattern of case marking and often have characteristic lexical properties, sporadically occur in forms of the dominant strong masculine nouns. Using data from the nine-billion-token DECOW12A web corpus of contemporary German, I demonstrate that the probability of the alternation is influenced by the presence or absence of semantic, phonotactic, and paradigmatic features. Token frequency is also shown to have an effect on the alternation, in line with common assumptions about the relation between frequency and entrenchment. I use a version of prototype theory with weighted features and polycentric categories, but I also discuss the question of whether such corpus data can be taken as strong evidence for or against specific models of cognitive representation (prototypes vs. exemplars).
Appendix: Weak nouns in the full sample
Abiturient (398/0.013±0.011), Abonnent (706/0.004±0.005), Absolvent (479/0.013±0.01), Adept (305/0.039±0.022), Adjutant (140/0.021±0.024), Adressat (585/0.024±0.012), Adventist (66/0±0), Advokat (262/0.038±0.023), Affe (3579/0.015±0.004), Afghane (254/0±0), Agent (3214/0.059±0.008), Ahn (315/0.162±0.041), Akrobat (68/0.015±0.029), Aktivist (613/0.007±0.006), Alchimist (193/0.005±0.01), Alemanne (83/0.024±0.033), Ammonit (77/0.013±0.025), Analphabet (196/0.005±0.01), Analyst (310/0.032±0.02), Anarchist (326/0.009±0.01), Anästhesist (351/0.011±0.011), Anatom (45/0.267±0.129), Anglist (9/0±0), Antagonist (184/0.016±0.018), Anthropologe (117/0.017±0.024), Antichrist (60/0.217±0.104), Apologet (37/0.027±0.052), Archäologe (598/0±0), Architekt (5168/0.023±0.004), Archont (14/0.071±0.135), Argonaut (7/0±0), Aristokrat (198/0±0), Artist (297/0.444±0.056), Asiate (419/0.002±0.005), Asket (230/0.004±0.008), Aspirant (62/0±0), Assistent (2489/0.016±0.005), Asteroid (1543/0.029±0.008), Ästhet (60/0.017±0.032), Astronaut (556/0.016±0.01), Astronom (359/0.081±0.028), Aszendent (69/0.058±0.055), Atheist (921/0.014±0.008), Athlet (1070/0.014±0.007), Autist (331/0.003±0.006), Autokrat (59/0.034±0.046), Automat (3674/0.05±0.007), Baptist (34/0.029±0.057), Bär (5551/0.089±0.008), Barbare (571/0.012±0.009), Barde (573/0.01±0.008), Baske (23/0±0), Bassist (1024/0.018±0.008), Beduine (214/0±0), Biograph (72/0±0), Biologe (581/0.003±0.005), Böhme (24/0.292±0.182), Bolide (337/0±0), Borusse (77/0±0), Bote (2824/0.025±0.006), Brahmane (283/0±0), Brillant (1378/0.065±0.013), Brite (628/0.005±0.005), Bube (724/0.007±0.006), Buchstabe (5818/0.1±0.008), Bulgare (93/0±0), Bulle (1261/0.016±0.007), Bürge (660/0.015±0.009), Bürokrat (150/0.013±0.018), Bursche (1159/0.004±0.004), Cellist (138/0±0), Chaot (189/0.074±0.037), Chilene (83/0±0), Chinese (1783/0.022±0.007), Chirurg (2015/0.051±0.01), Choreograph (107/0.056±0.044), Christ (5224/0.025±0.004), Chronist (249/0.008±0.011), Chronograph (185/0.103±0.044), Dadaist (9/0.111±0.205), Däne (346/0±0), Delinquent (137/0.007±0.014), Demagoge (163/0±0), Demiurg (65/0.046±0.051), Demokrat (491/0.006±0.007), Demonstrant (593/0.017±0.01), Dendrit (35/0.171±0.125), Denunziant (95/0.011±0.02), Depp (722/0.191±0.029), Despot (446/0.018±0.012), Dilettant (132/0±0), Diözesan (45/0±0), Dirigent (1298/0.012±0.006), Disponent (146/0.041±0.032), Dissident (192/0±0), Doge (34/0.147±0.119), Dozent (1646/0.021±0.007), Dramaturg (88/0.08±0.056), Drogist (57/0.035±0.048), Druide (868/0.005±0.004), Egoist (231/0.026±0.02), Egomane (126/0.04±0.034), Elefant (6214/0.028±0.004), Elektrostat (59/0.102±0.077), Emigrant (238/0.004±0.008), Epigone (29/0±0), Eremit (235/0.051±0.028), Erotomane (10/0±0), Essayist (19/0±0), Este (35/0.029±0.055), Ethnologe (87/0±0), Eunuch (122/0.025±0.028), Evangelist (190/0.005±0.01), Exeget (21/0±0), Exorzist (252/0.016±0.015), Exot (530/0.051±0.019), Experte (9299/0.002±0.001), Exponent (216/0.037±0.025), Extremist (180/0.006±0.011), Fabrikant (331/0.018±0.014), Falke (920/0.021±0.009), Faschist (251/0.016±0.016), Favorit (2559/0.036±0.007), Feuilletonist (31/0±0), Filialist (57/0.018±0.034), Finalist (100/0.06±0.046), Fink (51/0.373±0.133), Finne (227/0.009±0.012), Florist (145/0.014±0.019), Flötist (53/0±0), Fotograf (4797/0.039±0.006), Franke (478/0.027±0.015), Franzose (2483/0.005±0.003), Friede (8063/0.13±0.007), Friese (435/0.08±0.026), Fundamentalist (263/0.004±0.007), Fürst (2333/0.029±0.007), Galerist (184/0.005±0.011), Ganove (230/0.013±0.015), Garant (342/0.345±0.05), Gardist (209/0.019±0.019), Gatte (374/0.011±0.01), Geck (59/0.441±0.127), Gedanke (19068/0.065±0.004), Gehilfe (573/0.002±0.003), Gendarm (171/0.193±0.059), Generalist (89/0.034±0.038), Genosse (779/0.001±0.002), Geograph (82/0.085±0.06), Geologe (306/0±0), Gepard (322/0.289±0.05), Germane (154/0±0), Germanist (185/0±0), Gigant (403/0.037±0.018), Gitarrist (2067/0.014±0.005), Glaube (11857/0.149±0.006), Götze (635/0.09±0.022), Graf (1589/0.056±0.011), Graph (1117/0.132±0.02), Gratulant (18/0±0), Grieche (1091/0.003±0.003), Grossist (31/0±0), Gymnasiast (303/0.023±0.017), Gynäkologe (571/0.007±0.007), Hanseat (36/0.028±0.054), Hase (4683/0.019±0.004), Havarist (39/0±0), Heide (1400/0.008±0.005), Held (13473/0.042±0.003), Hermaphrodit (50/0.06±0.066), Herr (3461/0.146±0.012), Hesse (121/0.091±0.051), Hirte (3067/0.002±0.001), Humanist (172/0.006±0.011), Humorist (73/0±0), Hüne (125/0±0), Husar (74/0.068±0.057), Hydrant (510/0.057±0.02), Idealist (280/0.018±0.016), Ideologe (83/0±0), Idiot (2180/0.027±0.007), Ignorant (249/0.004±0.008), Illuminat (51/0.275±0.122), Immigrant (170/0.047±0.032), Imperialist (23/0.043±0.083), Individualist (110/0.045±0.039), Informant (1095/0.016±0.007), Insasse (341/0.006±0.008), Inserent (46/0±0), Instrumentalist (60/0±0), Intendant (220/0.009±0.012), Interessent (2772/0.006±0.003), Internist (795/0.016±0.009), Interpret (846/0.025±0.01), Ire (362/0.011±0.011), Israelit (126/0.008±0.016), Jesuit (252/0.008±0.011), Journalist (6904/0.01±0.002), Jude (4558/0.005±0.002), Junge (79464/0.006±0), Jurist (2489/0.01±0.004), Kabarettist (1549/0.001±0.002), Kalif (158/0.032±0.027), Kalligraph (27/0.037±0.071), Kamerad (3704/0.017±0.004), Kandidat (8728/0.012±0.002), Kannibale (148/0.014±0.019), Kapitalist (414/0.01±0.009), Karikaturist (107/0.009±0.018), Kartograph (54/0.037±0.05), Kasache (43/0±0), Katalane (28/0±0), Katholik (738/0.015±0.009), Kaukase (49/0±0), Kelte (65/0±0), Kentaur (45/0.244±0.126), Kirgise (22/0±0), Kleptomane (15/0±0), Klient (1700/0.011±0.005), Klingone (655/0.002±0.003), Knabe (2249/0.008±0.004), Knappe (15073/0.002±0.001), Koeffizient (224/0.031±0.023), Kollege (25536/0.009±0.001), Kolonist (109/0.018±0.025), Kolumnist (86/0.035±0.039), Komet (1669/0.023±0.007), Kommunist (808/0.01±0.007), Komponist (2636/0.004±0.002), Kongolese (38/0±0), Konkurrent (6921/0.01±0.002), Konsonant (427/0.089±0.027), Konsument (669/0.012±0.008), Kontrahent (890/0.003±0.004), Konvertit (116/0.009±0.017), Kopist (66/0±0), Korrespondent (323/0.009±0.01), Korse (17/0±0), Kosmonaut (61/0.049±0.054), Krake (229/0.048±0.028), Kroate (182/0±0), Kryostat (41/0.146±0.108), Kunde (26576/0.007±0.001), Kurde (241/0±0), Laie (5673/0.006±0.002), Leopard (929/0.238±0.027), Lette (30/0.033±0.064), Libanese (147/0±0), Ligist (142/0.042±0.033), Linguist (114/0±0), Literat (284/0.004±0.007), Lithograph (21/0±0), Liturg (7/0.143±0.259), Lobbyist (220/0.023±0.02), Lombarde (5/0.2±0.351), Lotse (399/0±0), Löwe (4823/0.017±0.004), Lymphozyt (10/0.3±0.284), Magnet (3761/0.147±0.011), Marxist (186/0±0), Maschinist (149/0.054±0.036), Materialist (85/0.012±0.023), Matrose (649/0.005±0.005), Mensch (221210/0.017±0), Meteorit (1026/0.042±0.012), Mime (54/0.13±0.09), Ministrant (112/0.027±0.03), Minotaur (57/0.263±0.114), Misanthrop (87/0.08±0.057), Mohr (123/0.203±0.071), Monarch (687/0.051±0.016), Monolith (379/0.185±0.039), Monopolist (344/0.012±0.011), Moralist (178/0.006±0.011), Mutant (364/0.049±0.022), Name (107348/0.028±0.001), Narr (2235/0.029±0.007), Nationalist (178/0.006±0.011), Neffe (795/0.013±0.008), Nekromant (350/0.037±0.02), Neophyt (33/0.182±0.132), Neurologe (1725/0.005±0.003), Nomade (157/0.013±0.018), Obelisk (640/0.188±0.03), Obrist (42/0.071±0.078), Ochse (1358/0.012±0.006), Ökonom (287/0.101±0.035), Oligarch (69/0.014±0.028), Opponent (74/0.081±0.062), Opportunist (136/0±0), Optimist (391/0.02±0.014), Organist (390/0.008±0.009), Orientale (131/0.008±0.015), Ostheopath (51/0.039±0.053), Pädagoge (629/0±0), Päderast (43/0±0), Page (350/0.417±0.052), Paragraf (321/0.019±0.015), Parasit (679/0.047±0.016), Partisan (180/0.089±0.042), Pate (1175/0.004±0.004), Pathologe (408/0±0), Patient (18232/0.01±0.002), Patriot (297/0.114±0.036), Pazifist (169/0.024±0.023), Perfektionist (150/0.013±0.018), Pessimist (211/0.047±0.029), Pfaffe (146/0.007±0.013), Phantast (101/0.02±0.027), Pharmazeut (49/0±0), Philanthrop (28/0.036±0.069), Philologe (116/0±0), Philosoph (2330/0.011±0.004), Pianist (1124/0.017±0.008), Pilot (4226/0.048±0.006), Planet (19683/0.018±0.002), Planetoid (166/0.012±0.017), Poet (428/0.023±0.014), Pole (1013/0.139±0.021), Politologe (88/0±0), Polizist (10166/0.018±0.003), Polyp (219/0.183±0.051), Populist (117/0.009±0.017), Portugiese (189/0.005±0.01), Posaunist (56/0±0), Potentat (91/0.022±0.03), Präfekt (107/0.028±0.031), Praktikant (1542/0.034±0.009), Prälat (117/0.009±0.017), Präsident (6013/0.016±0.003), Prinz (3152/0.085±0.01), Proband (491/0.018±0.012), Produzent (2426/0.012±0.004), Prokurist (341/0.003±0.006), Prolet (99/0.01±0.02), Propagandist (50/0.02±0.039), Prophet (3291/0.022±0.005), Proselyt (29/0±0), Protagonist (1103/0.011±0.006), Protestant (267/0.004±0.007), Protokollant (80/0.012±0.024), Psychopath (873/0.016±0.008), Publizist (156/0.006±0.012), Purist (42/0.024±0.046), Pyromane (51/0.02±0.038), Quadrant (285/0.021±0.017), Querulant (142/0.007±0.014), Quotient (247/0.077±0.033), Rabe (1169/0.022±0.008), Radiologe (273/0.007±0.01), Rassist (378/0.042±0.02), Realist (210/0.024±0.021), Rebell (587/0.143±0.028), Referent (1608/0.021±0.007), Regent (335/0.024±0.016), Rekrut (302/0.013±0.013), Renegat (51/0.02±0.038), Reservist (93/0.011±0.021), Revisionist (30/0±0), Rezensent (325/0.009±0.01), Rezipient (128/0.008±0.015), Riese (15717/0.002±0.001), Rivale (1007/0.001±0.002), Romanist (18/0±0), Rüde (4923/0.009±0.003), Rumäne (224/0.004±0.009), Russe (1244/0.006±0.004), Sachse (240/0.042±0.025), Sadist (178/0.011±0.016), Same (998/0.063±0.015), Sarde (15/0.067±0.126), Satellit (2631/0.037±0.007), Schamane (1589/0.01±0.005), Schenk (247/0.065±0.031), Scherge (100/0±0), Schiit (36/0±0), Schimpanse (603/0.007±0.006), Schöffe (191/0±0), Schotte (387/0.034±0.018), Schultheiß (120/0.367±0.086), Schurke (1202/0.015±0.007), Schwabe (408/0±0), Schwede (635/0.006±0.006), Seismograph (156/0.064±0.038), Semit (7/0±0), Senegalese (37/0±0), Separatist (22/0.136±0.143), Serbe (215/0.005±0.009), Sklave (2664/0.005±0.003), Slawe (21/0±0), Slowake (69/0±0), Slowene (58/0±0), Solipsist (18/0±0), Solist (336/0.015±0.013), Sophist (52/0.019±0.037), Sorbe (12/0±0), Sozialist (263/0.027±0.02), Soziologe (303/0±0), Spekulant (152/0.02±0.022), Spezialist (8607/0.011±0.002), Statist (165/0.055±0.035), Stipendiat (115/0.139±0.063), Stratege (222/0±0), Student (6399/0.03±0.004), Stylist (153/0.033±0.028), Sudanese (38/0±0), Sunnit (31/0.032±0.062), Sympathisant (113/0.053±0.041), Szenarist (11/0±0), Technokrat (38/0±0), Telefonist (20/0.1±0.132), Telegraph (83/0.024±0.033), Terrorist (1899/0.034±0.008), Theologe (1414/0.003±0.003), Therapeut (6623/0.013±0.003), Tomograph (31/0±0), Tourist (1868/0.029±0.008), Transvestit (255/0.043±0.025), Trilith (22/0.136±0.143), Trotzkist (27/0±0), Tscheche (263/0.008±0.01), Tscherkesse (8/0±0), Türke (2235/0.007±0.004), Tyrann (1165/0.078±0.015), Untertan (291/0.474±0.057), Urologe (1206/0.009±0.005), Vasall (280/0.107±0.036), Veteran (731/0.248±0.031), Virtuose (520/0±0), Waise (74/0.014±0.026), Welsche (26/0±0), Westfale (100/0.04±0.038), Wille (11581/0.132±0.006), Zar (125/0.224±0.073), Zentaur (139/0.266±0.074), Zeuge (11613/0.005±0.001), Zionist (57/0±0), Zivilist (604/0.008±0.007), Zoologe (87/0.011±0.022), Zyklop (229/0.031±0.022), Aeronaut (17/0.824±0.181), Bauer (13842/0.068±0.004), Bayer (1232/0.119±0.018), Centaur (50/0.6±0.136), Doktorand (319/0.031±0.019), Infant (8/0.375±0.336), Infanterist (234/0.021±0.018), Resident (171/0.567±0.074), Steinmetz (491/0.839±0.032), Titan (528/0.57±0.042), Zeolith (30/0.6±0.175).
References
Baayen, R. Harald, Anna Endresen, Laura A. Janda, Anastasia Makarova & Tore Nesset. 2013. Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics 37. 253–291.10.1007/s11185-013-9118-6Search in Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3). 209–226.10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1990. On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation. In Thomas K. Srull & Robert S. Wyer (eds.), Advances in social cognition, Volume III: Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experiences, 61–88. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Vsevolod Kapatsinski. 2014, ahead of print. A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of “am”, “are” and “is”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI 10.1515/cllt–2014–0022.DOI 10.1515/cllt–2014–0022Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar
Biemann, Chris, Felix Bildhauer, Stefan Evert, Dirk Goldhahn, Uwe Quasthoff, Roland Schäfer, Johannes Simon, Leonard Swiezinski & Torsten Zesch. 2013. Scalable construction of high-quality web corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics 28(2). 23–60.10.21248/jlcl.28.2013.175Search in Google Scholar
Bittner, Dagmar. 2003. Von starken Feminina und schwachen Maskulina: Die neuhochdeutsche Substantivflexion – Eine Systemanalyse im Rahmen der natürlichen Morphologie. Berlin: ZAS.10.21248/zaspil.31.2003.181Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Search in Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical Information-Theoretic approach, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.Search in Google Scholar
Busemeyer, Jerome R., In Jae Myung & Mark A. McDaniel. 1993. Cue competition effects: Empirical tests of adaptive network learning models. Psychological Science 4(3). 190–195.10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00486.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.9Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70.10.2307/413574Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 378–388.10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293Search in Google Scholar
Campell, Donald T. & Donald W. Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56. 81–105.10.1037/h0046016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Cronbach, Lee J. & Paul E. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52. 281–302.10.1037/h0040957Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2008. The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 931–951.10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.005Search in Google Scholar
Daelemans, Walter & Antal van den Bosch. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486579Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe. 2013. Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 221–274.10.1515/cog-2013-0008Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris. 2015. Frequency and entrenchment. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 53–75. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-004Search in Google Scholar
Dobrić, Nikola. 2015. Three-factor prototypicality evaluation and the verb “look”. Language Sciences 50. 1–11.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.12.005Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2012. Das Fremdwort im Deutschen, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110288421Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort, 4th edn. edited by Nanna Fuhrhop. Stuttgart: Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-00757-5Search in Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & R. Harald Baayen. 2004. Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics 42(5). 873–903.10.1515/ling.2004.031Search in Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan & Andrew Hardie. 2011. Twenty-first century Corpus Workbench: Updating a query architecture for the new millennium. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2011 Conference. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Search in Google Scholar
Fahrmeir, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang & Brian Marx. 2013. Regression – models, methods, and application. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-34333-9Search in Google Scholar
Fox, John & Georges Monette. 1992. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistics Association 87. 178–183.10.1080/01621459.1992.10475190Search in Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790942Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2006. The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 159–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Glyn, Dylan & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). 2010. Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1. 1–27.10.1075/arcl.1.02griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics – A love-hate relationship? Not Necessarily. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(3). 327–343.10.1075/ijcl.15.3.02griSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Corpus and quantitative methods. In Jeanette Littlemore & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics, 279–300. London & New York: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–126.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Dagmar S. Divjak. 2010. Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics. In Dylan Glyn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 331–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.331Search in Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics 9(7). 342–348.10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002Search in Google Scholar
Hintzman, Douglas, L. 1986. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93(4). 411–428.10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.411Search in Google Scholar
Joeres, Rolf. 1996. “Der Friede” oder “der Frieden”: ein Normproblem der Substantivflexion. Sprachwissenschaft 21. 301–336.Search in Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2014. What is grammar like? A usage-based constructionist perspective. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 11. 1–41.10.33011/lilt.v11i.1361Search in Google Scholar
Klein, Wolf Peter. 2009. Auf der Kippe? Zweifelsfälle als Herausforderung(en) für Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachnormierung. In Marek Konopka & Bruno Strecker (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch, 141–165. Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1995. Die Klassifikation der schwachen Maskulina in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache – ein Beispiel für die Leistungsfähigkeit der Prototypentheorie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14(2). 159–180.10.1515/zfsw.1995.14.2.159Search in Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 2000. Chaos und Ordnung – zur semantischen Remotivierung einer Deklinationsklasse im Übergang vom Mhd. zum Nhd. In Andreas Bittner, Dagmar Bittner & Klaus-Michael Köpcke (eds.), Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax, 107–122. Hildesheim, Zürich & New York: Olms.Search in Google Scholar
Kruschke, John K. & Mark K. Johansen. 1999. A model of probabilistic category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25(5). 1083–1119.10.1037/0278-7393.25.5.1083Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Kuperman, Victor & Joan Bresnan. 2012. The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 66. 588–611.10.1016/j.jml.2012.04.003Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2010. How not to disagree: The emergence of structure from usage. In Kasper Boye & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen (eds.), Language usage and language structure, 107–143. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Maxwell, Scott E. & Harold D. Delaney. 2004. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410609243Search in Google Scholar
Medin, Douglas L. & Marguerite M. Schaffer. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85(3). 207–238.10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Nesset, Tore & Laura A. Janda. 2010. Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4). 699–725.10.1515/cogl.2010.022Search in Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79. 682–707.10.1353/lan.2003.0260Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar
Ramscar, Michael, Melody Dye & Malte Hübner. 2013. When the fly flied and when the fly flew: How semantics affect the processing of inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(4). 468–497.10.1080/01690965.2011.649041Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350.10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn B. Mervis, Wayne D. Gray, David M. Johnson & Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382–439.10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-XSearch in Google Scholar
Rousseeuw, Peter J., Ida Ruts & John W. Tukey. 1999. The bagplot: A bivariate Boxplot. The American Statistician 53(4). 382–387.10.1080/00031305.1999.10474494Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen. Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_533872Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz. 2014. Die Kurzformen des Indefinitartikels im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33(2). 215–250.10.1515/zfs-2014-0008Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new effcient tool chain. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the eighth International conference on language resources and evaluation, 486–493. Istanbul: ELRA.Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2013. Web corpus construction. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool.10.2200/S00508ED1V01Y201305HLT022Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010a. Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 117–134. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010b. Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Dylan Glyn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 101–133. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.101Search in Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-1906-8Search in Google Scholar
Storms, Gert, Paul De Boeck & Wim Ruts. 2000. Prototype and exemplar-based information in natural language categories. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 51–73.10.1006/jmla.1999.2669Search in Google Scholar
Sutcliffe, John P. 1993. Concepts, class, and category in the tradition of aristotle. In Iven Van Mechelen, James A. Hampton, Ryszard S. Michalski, & Peter Theuns (eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis, 35–65. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tabak, Wieke, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon 5(1). 22–46.10.1075/ml.5.1.02tabSearch in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003a. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003b. Near-synonyms as co-extensive categories. Language Sciences 25. 637–655.10.1016/S0388-0001(03)00031-7Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2006. Polysemy and the lexicon. In Gitte Kristiansen, Michel Achard, René Dirven & Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives, 51–80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2008. Prototypes in cognitive linguistics. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 39–65. New York & London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2015. Prototype effects in grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 562–579. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-028Search in Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 2003. Die Bedienung des Automatens durch den Mensch. Deklination der schwachen Maskulina als Zweifelsfall. Linguistik Online 16(4). 105–117.10.13092/lo.16.798Search in Google Scholar
Uehara, Satoshi. 2003. A diachronic perspective on prototypicality: The case of nominal adjectives in Japanese. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & Taylor, John (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 363–391. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.363Search in Google Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel & Philippe Hiligsmann. 2014. When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch “reuze”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1). 31–64.10.1017/S1470542713000172Search in Google Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 1990. Toward a theory of syntactic prototypes. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes. Studies in linguistic categorization, 285–306. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1985. Deutsch “der Funke” zu “der Funken”: ein Fall für die natürliche Morphologie. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR A(127). 129–145.Search in Google Scholar
Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Productivity in argument selection. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110303919Search in Google Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Elena N. Ieno, Neil Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6Search in Google Scholar
Note
For each noun, the total count in the full sample and the proportion of strong forms with half a 95 % confidence interval (rounded to three decimal digits) is specified.
©2019 by De Gruyter Mouton
