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

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar / Newman, John

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2017: 1.62

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.032
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.930

Online
ISSN
1613-3641
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 26, Issue 3

Issues

Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore

Clarice Robenalt / Adele E. Goldberg
Published Online: 2015-06-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0004

Abstract

How do speakers know when they can use language creatively and when they cannot? Prior research indicates that higher frequency verbs are more resistant to overgeneralization than lower frequency verbs with similar meaning and argument structure constraints. This result has been interpreted as evidence for conservatism via entrenchment, which proposes that people prefer to use verbs in ways they have heard before, with the strength of dispreference for novel uses increasing with overall verb frequency. This paper investigates whether verb frequency is actually always relevant in judging the acceptability of novel sentences or whether it only matters when there is a readily available alternative way to express the intended message with the chosen verb, as is predicted by statistical preemption. Two experiments are reported in which participants rated novel uses of high and low frequency verbs in argument structure constructions in which those verbs do not normally appear. Separate norming studies were used to divide the sentences into those with and without an agreed-upon preferred alternative phrasing which would compete with the novel use for acceptability. Experiment 2 controls for construction type: all target stimuli are instances of the caused-motion construction. In both experiments, we replicate the stronger dispreference for a novel use with a high frequency verb relative to its lower frequency counterpart, but only for those sentences for which there exists a competing alternative phrasing. When there is no consensus about a preferred way to phrase a sentence, verb frequency is not a predictive factor in sentences’ ratings. We interpret this to mean that while speakers prefer familiar formulations to novel ones, they are willing to extend verbs creatively if there is no readily available alternative way to express the intended meaning.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

Keywords: productivity in language; conservatism via entrenchment; statistical pre-emption; verb frequency; grammatical acceptability

References

  • Allopenna, P. D., J. S. Magnuson & M. K. Tanenhaus. 1998. Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language 38. 419–439.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ambridge, B. & S. Brandt. 2013. Lisa filled water into the cup : The roles of entrenchment, preemption and verb semantics in German speakers’ L2 acquisition of English locatives. ZAA 6(3). 245–263.Google Scholar

  • Ambridge, B., J. M. Pine, C. F. Rowland, & C. R. Young. 2008. The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106. 87–129.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ambridge, B., J. M. Pine & C. F. Rowland 2012a. Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition 123(2). 260–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ambridge, B., J. M. Pine, C. F. Rowland & F. Chang. 2012b. The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument structure overgeneralization errors. Language 88(1). 45–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Amridge, B., J. M. Pine, C. F. Rowland, D. Freudenthal & F. Chang. 2014. Avoiding dative overgeneralisation errors: Semantics, statistics or both? Language and Cognitive Processes 29(2). 218–243.Google Scholar

  • Arnold J. E., T. Wasow, A. Losongco & R. Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76. 28–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4). 533–581.Google Scholar

  • Barr, D. J., R. Levy, C. Scheepers & H. J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68. 255–278.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bates, E. & B. MacWhinney. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Bley-Vroman, R. & H. R. Joo. 2001. The acquisition and interpretation of English locative constructions by native speakers of Korean. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23(2). 207–219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bornstein, R. F. & P. R. D’Agostino. 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63. 545–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowerman, M. 1988. The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bowerman, M. 1996. Argument structure and learnability: Is a solution in sight? In J. Johnson, M. L. Juge & J. L. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 16–19, 1996. General Session and Parasession on The Role of Learnability in Grammatical Theory, 454–468. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Boyd, J. K. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 87(1). 55–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boyd, J. K., F. Ackerman & M. Kutas. 2012. Adult learners use both entrenchment and preemption to infer grammatical constraints. IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL), 2012, 1–2.Google Scholar

  • Braine, M. D. 1971. On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Braine, M. D. S. & P. J. Brooks. 1995. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs, 353–376. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina & R. H. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar

  • Brooks, P. & M. Tomasello. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75. 720–738.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brooks, P. J. & O. Zizak. 2002. Does preemption help children learn verb transitivity? Journal of Child Language 29. 759–781.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brooks, P. J., M, Tomasello, K. Dodson & L. B. Lewis. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70(6). 1325–1337.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, R. & C. Hanlon. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Chouinard, M. M. & E. V. Clark. 2003. Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30(3). 637–669.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, E. 1987. The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Clark, E. V. & H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4). 767–811.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Collins, P. 1995. The indirect object construction in English: An informational approach. Linguistics 33. 35–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.org.

  • DeLong, K., M. Troyer & M. Kutas. 2014. Pre-Processing in sentence comprehension: Sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(12). 631–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Di Sciullo, A. M. & E. Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Elman, J. L. 2004. An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(7). 301–306.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Erteschik-Shir, N. 1979. Discourse constraints on dative movement. In T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, 441–467. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Foraker, S., T. Regier, N. Khetarpal, A. Perfors, & J. B. Tenenbaum. 2007. Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Cognitive Science Society, 275–80. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Gennari, S. P. & M. C. Macdonald. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58(4). 161–187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibson, E., L. Bergen & S. T. Piantadosi. 2013. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(20). 8051–8056.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Glenberg, A. M. & V. Gallese. 2012. Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex 48, 905–922.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1993. Another look at some learnability paradoxes. In E. V. Clark (ed.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 60–75. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

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

  • Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22, 131–153.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E., D. M. Casenhiser & N. Sethuraman. 2005. The role of prediction in construction-learning. Journal of Child Language 32(2). 407–426.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Green, G. M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg & R. Wilson. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65(2). 203–257.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gropen, J., P. Steven, M. Hollander & R. Goldberg. 1991. Syntax and semantics in the aquisition of locative verbs. Journal of Child Language 18(1). 115–151.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hovav, M. R. & B. Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44, 129–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jaeger, T.Florian & Neal E. Snider. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1). 57–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, M. A. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2013. Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1439–1452.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, Matt A., Nicholas B. Turk-Browne & Adele E. Goldberg. 2013. Prediction plays a key role in language development as well as processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4). 360–361.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kamide, Y., G. Altmann & S. L. Haywood. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1). 133–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • King, J. W. & M. Kutas. 1995. A brain potential whose latency indexes the length and frequency of words. CRL Newsletter 10(2). 1–9.Google Scholar

  • Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In S. Yang (ed), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

  • Kutas, M. & S. A. Hillyard. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 307. 161–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Levy, R., E. Fedorenko, M. Breen & E. Gibson. 2012. The processing of extraposed structures in English. Cognition 122(1). 12–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lew-Williams, C. & A. Fernald. 2007. Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science 18(3). 193–198.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Marcotte, J. 2005. Causative alternation errors as event-driven construction paradigm completions. In E. V. Clark & B. F. Kelly (eds.), Constructions in Acquisition. Stanford, CA:Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Marcus, G. F. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46. 53–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oehrle, R. T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244(5417). 522–523.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pickering, M. J. & S. Garrod. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2). 169–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pickering, M. J. & S. Garrod. 2007. Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension?Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(3). 105–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pickering, M. J. & S. Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4). 329–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pinker, S. 1981. Comments. In C. L. Baker & J. J. McCarthy (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition, 53–63. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

  • Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rainer, F. 1988. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. In Geert E. Booij & Jaap Van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1, 155–185. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Robenalt, C. & Adele E. Goldberg. To appear. L2 learners do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way L1 learners do. Language Learning.Google Scholar

  • Saxton, M., B. Kulcsar, G. Marshall, & M. Rupra. 1998. Longer-term effects of corrective input: An experimental approach. Journal of Child Language 25. 701–721.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stephens, Greg J., Lauren J. Silbert & Uri Hasson. 2010. Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(32). 14425–14430.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tanenhaus, M. K., M. J. Spivey-Knowlton, K. M. Eberhard & J. C. Sedivy. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic Information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268(5217). 1632–1634.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Theakston, A. L. 2004. The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development 19. 15–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Thompson, S. A. 1995. The iconicity of “dative shift” in English: Considerations from information flow in discourse. In M. E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension, 155–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Traxler, M. J., D. J. Foss, R. E. Seely, B. Kaup & R. K. Morris. 2000. Priming in sentence processing: Intralexical spreading activation, schemas, and situation models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(6). 581–594.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wasow, T. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: Center for Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2013-11-14

Revised: 2015-01-13

Accepted: 2015-02-19

Published Online: 2015-06-30

Published in Print: 2015-08-01


Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 467–503, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0004.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

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.

[1]
Kieran Green and John W. Schwieter
Cogent Education, 2018, Volume 5, Number 1
[3]
Clarice Robenalt and Adele E. Goldberg
Language Learning, 2016, Volume 66, Number 1, Page 60
[4]
Florent Perek and Adele E. Goldberg
Journal of Memory and Language, 2015, Volume 84, Page 108

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in