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

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 29, Issue 4


Abstractions and exemplars: The measure noun phrase alternation in German

Roland SchäferORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-7874
Published Online: 2018-11-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0050


In this paper, an alternation in German measure noun phrases is examined under a varying-abstraction perspective. In a specific measure NP construction, the embedded kind-denoting noun either agrees in case with the measure noun (eine Tasse guter Kaffee ‘a cup of good coffee’) or it stands in the genitive (eine Tasse guten Kaffees). Each of the two alternants is syntactically similar to a non-alternating construction. I propose a prototype model which assigns a common prototypical meaning to each of the alternants and its corresponding non-alternating construction. Based on this, I argue that lexical, morphosyntactic, and stylistic features help to predict the choice of the alternant. A large corpus study is presented which supports this analysis. However, in addition to the prototype effects, an exemplar effect is also shown to influence the choice, namely the relative frequencies with which lemmas occur in the non-alternating constructions. I argue that allowing both prototype and exemplar effects is more adequate than following radical prototype or exemplar approaches. It is also verified in two experiments that the corpus-derived model corresponds to the behaviour of native speakers. The weak effect size of the experimental validation is discussed in the context of corpus-based cognitive linguistics and the validation of corpus-derived models.

Keywords: prototypes vs. exemplars; corpus methods and experimental validation; morphosyntactic alternations; multilevel modeling; pseudo-partitives; German


  • Arppe, Antti & Juhani Järvikivi. 2007. Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2). 131–159.Google Scholar

  • Baayen, R. Harald, Cyrus Shaoul, Jon Willits & Michael Ramscar. 2016. Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discriminative learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1). 106–128.Google Scholar

  • Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(4). 679–717.Google Scholar

  • Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278.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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas M. 2010. lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. http://webcom.upmf-grenoble.fr/LIP/Perso/DMuller/M2R/R_et_Mixed/documents/Bates-book.pdf (accessed 22 September 2018).Google Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas M., Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & R. Harald Baayen. 2015a. Parsimonious mixed models. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.04967v2.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Bates, Douglas M., Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015b. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, Christa. 1990. Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.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

  • Bildhauer, Felix & Roland Schäfer. 2016. Automatic classification by topic domain for meta data generation, web corpus evaluation, and corpus comparison. In Paul Cook, Stefan Evert, Roland Schäfer & Egon Stemle (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Web as Corpus workshop (WAC-X), 1–6. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun construction: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticlization. International Jounal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 283–312.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar), 77–96. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akadmie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan & Jennifer Hay. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of ‘give’ in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118. 245–259.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014. Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers’ knowledge of collocations. The Mental Lexicon 9(3). 401–418.Google Scholar

  • Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 479–491.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar. 2016. Four challenges for usage-based linguistics. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 297–309. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.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, Antti Arppe & R. Harald Baayen. 2016a. Does language-as-used fit a self-paced reading paradigm? In Tanja Anstatt, Anja Gattnar & Christina Clasmeier (eds.), Slavic languages in psycholinguistics, 52–82. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar, Ewa Dąbrowska & Antti Arppe. 2016b. Machine meets man: Evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models. Cognitive Linguistics 27(1). 1–33.Google Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near-synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2). 188–213.Google Scholar

  • Duden. 2011. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch - Das Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle. Dudenredaktion unter Mitarbeit von Peter Eisenberg und Jan Georg Schneider (ed.), 7th edn. Mannheim & Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

  • Durrant, Philip & Alice Doherty. 2010. Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 125–155.Google Scholar

  • Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Der Satz, 4th edn. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar

  • Eschenbach, Carola. 1994. Maßangaben im Kontext - Variationen der quantitativen Spezifikation. In Sascha W. Felix, Christopher Habel & Gert Rickeit (eds.), Kognitive Linguistik – Repräsentationen und Prozesse, 207–228. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Fleischer, Jürg & Oliver Schallert. 2011. Historische Syntax des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Ford, Marilyn & Joan Bresnan. 2013. Using convergent evidence from psycholinguistics and usage. In Manfred Krug & Julia Schlüter (eds.), Research methods in language variation and change, 295–312. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27.Google Scholar

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

  • Gallmann, Peter & Thomas Lindauer. 1994. Funktionale Kategorien in Nominalphrasen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache 116(1). 1–27.Google Scholar

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

  • Gerstenberger, Laura. 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18. 93–138.Google Scholar

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

  • Goethem, Kristel Van & Matthias Hüning. 2015. From noun to evaluative adjective: Conversion or debonding? Dutch top and its equivalents in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27(4). 365–408.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. 2015a. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 505–536.Google Scholar

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

  • Gries, Stefan Th. 2015c. The role of quantitative methods in cognitive linguistics: Corpus and experimental data on (relative) frequency and contingency of words and constructions. In Jocelyne Daems, Eline Zenner, Kris Heylen, Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of paradigms - new paradoxes: Recontextualizing language and linguistics, 311–325. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe & Doris Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4). 635–676.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200.Google Scholar

  • Griffiths, Thomas L., Kevin R. Canini, Adam N. Sanborn & Daniel J. Navarro. 2009. Unifying rational models of categorization via the hierarchical dirichlet process. In Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 323–328. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Halekoh, Ulrich & Søren Højsgaard. 2014. A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models – the R package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical Software 59(9). 1–30.Google Scholar

  • Hentschel, Elke. 1993. Flexionsverfall im Deutschen? Die Kasusmarkierung bei partitiven Genitiv-Attributen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 21(3). 320–333.Google Scholar

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

  • Johnson, Steven G. 2017. The nlopt nonlinear-optimization package. http://ab-initio.mit.edu/ nlopt accessed 22 September 2018).(Google Scholar

  • Kaiser, Elsi. 2013. Experimental paradigms in psycholinguistics. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 135–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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, Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. “A piece of the cake” and “a cup of tea”: Partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), The Circum-Baltic languages: Typology and contact, vol. 2, 523–568. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kupietz, Marc, Cyril Belica, Holger Keibel & Andreas Witt. 2010. The German reference corpus DeReKo: A primordial sample for linguistic research. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, Mike Rosner & Daniel Tapias (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC ’10), 1848–1854. Valletta, Malta: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar

  • Lee, Michael D. & Wolf Vanpaemel. 2008. Exemplars, prototypes, similarities, and rules in category representation: An example of hierarchical Bayesian analysis. Cognitive Science 32. 1403–1424.Google Scholar

  • Löbel, Elisabeth. 1986. Apposition in der Quantifizierung. In Armin Burkhardt & Karl-Hermann Körner (eds.), Pragmantax. Akten des 20. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Braunschweig 1985, 47–59. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Löbel, Elisabeth. 1989. Q as a functional category. In Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel & Claudia Schmidt (eds.), Syntactic phrase structure phenomena, 133–158. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Matuschek, Hannes, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, R. Harald Baayen & Douglas M. Bates. 2017. Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 94. 305–315.Google Scholar

  • Maxwell, Scott E. & Harold D. Delaney. 2004. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwa, New Jersey, London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

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

  • Minda, John Paul & J. David Smith. 2001. Prototypes in category learning: The effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(3). 775–799.Google Scholar

  • Minda, John Paul & J. David Smith. 2002. Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28(2). 275–292.Google Scholar

  • Mollin, Sandra. 2009. Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(2). 175–200.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Sonja. 2014. Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln “ja” und “doch”: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte 238. 165–208.Google Scholar

  • Murphy, Gregory L. 2003. Ecological validity and the study of concepts. In Brian H. Ross (ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation - advances in research and theory, 1–41. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Nakagawa, Shinichi & Holger Schielzeth. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2). 133–142.Google Scholar

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

  • Newman, John. 2011. Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11(2). 521–559.Google Scholar

  • Newman, John & Tamara Sorenson Duncan. 2015. Convergence and divergence in cognitive linguistics: Facing up to alternative realities of linguistic catgeories. Paper presented at the 13th international cognitive linguistics conference (ICLC-13), Northumbria University, Newcastle, July 20–25.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. Psychopy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1–2). 8–13.Google Scholar

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

  • Ramscar, Michael & Robert F. Port. 2016. How spoken languages work in the absence of an inventory of discrete units. Language Sciences 53. 58–74.Google Scholar

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

  • Rosseel, Yves. 2002. Mixture models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46(2). 178–210.Google Scholar

  • Rutkowski, Paweł. 2007. The syntactic structure of grammaticalized partitives (pseudo-partitives). In Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam & Laia Mayol (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual penn linguistics colloquium, vol. 1 (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13), 337–350. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Graduate Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

  • Schachtl, Stefanie. 1989. Morphological case and abstract case: Evidence from the German genitive construction. In Christa Bhatt, Elisabeth Löbel & Claudia Schmidt (eds.), Syntactic phrase structure phenomena, 99–112. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland. 2015. Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. In Piotr Bański, Hanno Biber, Evelyn Breiteneder, Marc Kupietz, Harald Lüngen & Andreas Witt (eds.), Proceedings of challenges in the management of large corpora 3 (CMLC-3), UCREL Lancaster: IDS.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland. 2016. Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory ahead of print.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland, Adrien Barbaresi & Felix Bildhauer. 2013. The good, the bad, and the hazy: Design decisions in web corpus construction. In Stefan Evert, Egon Stemle & Paul Rayson (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th web as corpus workshop (WAC-8), 7–15. Lancaster: SIGWAC.Google Scholar

  • Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference Chair), Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the eight international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’12), 486–493. Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar

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

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

  • Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz. 2016. Punctuation and syntactic structure in “obwohl” and “weil” clauses in nonstandard written German. Written Language and Literacy 19(2). 212–245.Google Scholar

  • Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax: Papers from the MSSB-UC Irvine conference on the formal syntax of natural language, Newport Beach, California, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Susanne Flach. 2016. A corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment, memory and automaticity. The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning, 101–128. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stefanowitsch, Anatol & {Stefan Th.} Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.Google Scholar

  • Stickney, Helen. 2007. From pseudopartitive to partitive. In Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni & Umeda Mari (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA), 406–415. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.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

  • Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tummers, José, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts. 2005. Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 225–261.Google Scholar

  • Vanpaemel, Wolf. 2016. Prototypes, exemplars and the response scaling parameter: A Bayes factor perspective. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 72. 183–190.Google Scholar

  • Vanpaemel, Wolf $ Gert Storms. 2008. In search of abstraction: The varying abstraction model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin $ Review 15(4). 732–749.Google Scholar

  • Vasishth, Shravan. 2015. A meta-analysis of relative clause processing in Mandarin Chinese using bias modelling: School of Mathematics and Statistics of the University of Sheffield dissertation. http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/ vasishth/pdfs/VasishthMScStatistics.pdf.Google Scholar

  • Verbeemen, Timothy, Wolf Vanpaemel, Sven Pattyn, Gert Storms & Tom Verguts. 2007. Beyond exemplars and prototypes as memory representations of natural concepts: A clustering approach. Journal of Memory and Language 56(4). 537–554.Google Scholar

  • Voorspoels, Wouter, Wolf Vanpaemel & Gert Storms. 2011. A formal ideal-based account of typicality. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18. 1006–1014.Google Scholar

  • Vos, Riet. 1999. A grammar of partitive constructions. Tilburg: Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Wood, S. N. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 73(1). 3–36.Google Scholar

  • Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Zimmer, Christian. 2015. Bei einem Glas guten Wein(es): Der Abbau des partitiven Genitivs und seine Reflexe im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 137(1). 1–41.Google Scholar

  • Zuur, Alain F., Elena N. Leno & Chris S. Elphick. 2010. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1(1). 3–14.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-04-18

Accepted: 2018-05-30

Revised: 2018-05-30

Published Online: 2018-11-10

Published in Print: 2018-11-27

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 729–771, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0050.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in