Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.760
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.109

CiteScore 2016: 0.58

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.281
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.971

Online
ISSN
1613-7035
See all formats and pricing
In This Section

Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns

Roland SchäferORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-7874
  • Corresponding author
  • Deutsche und Niederländische Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, Berlin 14195, Germany
  • ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-7874
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-08-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0051

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).

Keywords: prototype theory; alternations; nonstandard language; paradigm morphology; web corpora; German

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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. [Crossref]

  • Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.

  • 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.

  • Bittner, Dagmar. 2003. Von starken Feminina und schwachen Maskulina: Die neuhochdeutsche Substantivflexion – Eine Systemanalyse im Rahmen der natürlichen Morphologie. Berlin: ZAS.

  • 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.

  • Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical Information-Theoretic approach, 2nd edn. New York: Springer.

  • 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.

  • Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–70.

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistic Society 23. 378–388.

  • Campell, Donald T. & Donald W. Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56. 81–105.

  • Cronbach, Lee J. & Paul E. Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin 52. 281–302.

  • 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.

  • Daelemans, Walter & Antal van den Bosch. 2005. Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe. 2013. Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 221–274.

  • 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.

  • Dobrić, Nikola. 2015. Three-factor prototypicality evaluation and the verb “look”. Language Sciences 50. 1–11.

  • Eisenberg, Peter. 2012. Das Fremdwort im Deutschen, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

  • Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort, 4th edn. edited by Nanna Fuhrhop. Stuttgart: Metzler.

  • Ernestus, Mirjam & R. Harald Baayen. 2004. Analogical effects in regular past tense production in Dutch. Linguistics 42(5). 873–903.

  • 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.

  • Fahrmeir, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang & Brian Marx. 2013. Regression – models, methods, and application. Berlin: Springer.

  • Fox, John & Georges Monette. 1992. Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistics Association 87. 178–183.

  • Gelman, Andrew & Jennifer Hill. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • 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.

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Glyn, Dylan & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). 2010. Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1. 1–27.

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics – A love-hate relationship? Not Necessarily. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(3). 327–343.

  • 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.

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–126.

  • 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.

  • Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics 9(7). 342–348.

  • Hintzman, Douglas, L. 1986. Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93(4). 411–428.

  • Joeres, Rolf. 1996. “Der Friede” oder “der Frieden”: ein Normproblem der Substantivflexion. Sprachwissenschaft 21. 301–336.

  • Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2014. What is grammar like? A usage-based constructionist perspective. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 11. 1–41.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • 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.

  • Maxwell, Scott E. & Harold D. Delaney. 2004. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwah, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Medin, Douglas L. & Marguerite M. Schaffer. 1978. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85(3). 207–238.

  • Murphy, Gregory. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Nesset, Tore & Laura A. Janda. 2010. Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics 21(4). 699–725.

  • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79. 682–707.

  • R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • 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.

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350.

  • Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • 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.

  • Rousseeuw, Peter J., Ida Ruts & John W. Tukey. 1999. The bagplot: A bivariate Boxplot. The American Statistician 53(4). 382–387.

  • Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen. Berlin: Language Science Press.

  • Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz. 2014. Die Kurzformen des Indefinitartikels im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33(2). 215–250.

  • 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.

  • Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2013. Web corpus construction. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Tabak, Wieke, Robert Schreuder & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study. The Mental Lexicon 5(1). 22–46.

  • Taylor, John R. 2003a. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Taylor, John R. 2003b. Near-synonyms as co-extensive categories. Language Sciences 25. 637–655.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Taylor, John R. 2015. Prototype effects in grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 562–579. Berlin: De Gruyter.

  • Tuggy, David. 2007. Schematicity. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 82–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Thieroff, Rolf. 2003. Die Bedienung des Automatens durch den Mensch. Deklination der schwachen Maskulina als Zweifelsfall. Linguistik Online 16(4). 105–117.

  • 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.

  • Van Goethem, Kristel & Philippe Hiligsmann. 2014. When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch “reuze”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1). 31–64.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Zeldes, Amir. 2012. Productivity in argument selection. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.

  • 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.

About the article

Published Online: 2016-08-25



Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0051. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in