Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

2 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns

Roland SchäferORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-7874
Published Online: 2016-08-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0051


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


  • 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.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.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.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.CrossrefGoogle 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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Roland Schäfer and Elizabeth Pankratz
Morphology, 2018
Roland Schäfer and Ulrike Sayatz
Written Language & Literacy, 2016, Volume 19, Number 2, Page 212

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in