Abstractions and exemplars: The measure noun phrase alternation in German

Roland Schäfer

doi:10.1515/cog-2017-0050

Article

Abstractions and exemplars: The measure noun phrase alternation in German

Published/Copyright: November 10, 2018

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Cognitive Linguistics Volume 29 Issue 4

Abstract

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

Acknowledgements:

I thank (in alphabetical order) Felix Bildhauer, Susanne Flach, Elizabeth Pankratz, Samuel Reichert, Ulrike Sayatz, and Christian Zimmer for valuable discussions and comments. Also, I would like to thank the three reviewers for Cognitive Linguistics as well as associate editor Dagmar Divjak for insightful comments which helped to improve the quality of this paper significantly. Furthermore, I thank Ulrike Sayatz for helping me to recruit the participants for the experiments. I am grateful to Sonya Faber and Elizabeth Pankratz (in alphabetical order) for fixing my English. Finally, I am grateful to my student assistants Kim Maser for her work on the annotation of the concordances and Luise Rißmann for supervising most of the experiments. The research presented here was made possible in part through funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, personal grant SCHA1916/1-1).

References

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). 131–159.10.1515/CLLT.2007.009Search in 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). 106–128.10.1080/23273798.2015.1065336Search in Google Scholar

Barker, Chris. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(4). 679–717.Search in 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). 255–278.10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001Search 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: Erlbaum.Search in 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).Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas M., Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth & R. Harald Baayen. 2015a. Parsimonious mixed models. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.04967v2.pdf.Search in 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). 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar

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

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search 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

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.Search in Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte. 2003. Measure noun construction: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticlization. International Jounal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 283–312.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05breSearch in 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.Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213.10.1353/lan.0.0189Search in 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. 245–259.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007Search in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014. Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers’ knowledge of collocations. The Mental Lexicon 9(3). 401–418.10.1075/ml.9.3.02dabSearch in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 479–491.10.1515/cog-2016-0059Search in 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.10.1515/9783110435597-017Search 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, 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.Search in 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). 1–33.10.1515/cog-2015-0101Search in Google Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar & Stefan Th. Gries. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near-synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2). 188–213.10.1075/ml.3.2.03divSearch in 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.Search in 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). 125–155.10.1515/cllt.2010.006Search in Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 2013. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Der Satz, 4th edn. Stuttgart: Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-00757-5Search in 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.10.1007/978-3-663-05399-6_9Search in Google Scholar

Fleischer, Jürg & Oliver Schallert. 2011. Historische Syntax des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.Search in 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.10.1017/CBO9780511792519.020Search in Google Scholar

Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27.10.18637/jss.v008.i15Search 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

Gallmann, Peter & Thomas Lindauer. 1994. Funktionale Kategorien in Nominalphrasen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache 116(1). 1–27.10.1515/bgsl.1994.116.1.1Search 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

Gerstenberger, Laura. 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18. 93–138.10.1007/s10828-015-9074-1Search in Google Scholar

Goethem, Kristel Van & Philippe Hiligsmann. 2014. When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch ’reuze’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1). 31–64.10.1017/S1470542713000172Search in 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). 365–408.10.1017/S1470542715000112Search 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. 2015a. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 505–536.10.1515/cog-2014-0092Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015b. The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–126.10.3366/cor.2015.0068Search in 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.10.1515/9783110435597-018Search in 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). 635–676.10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635Search in 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.Search in 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.Search in 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.Search in 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). 1–30.10.18637/jss.v059.i09Search in Google Scholar

Hentschel, Elke. 1993. Flexionsverfall im Deutschen? Die Kasusmarkierung bei partitiven Genitiv-Attributen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 21(3). 320–333.10.1515/zfgl.1993.21.3.320Search 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

Johnson, Steven G. 2017. The nlopt nonlinear-optimization package. http://ab-initio.mit.edu/ nlopt accessed 22 September 2018).(Search in 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.10.1017/CBO9781139013734.009Search 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, Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in 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.10.1075/slcs.55.11kopSearch in 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).Search in 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. 1403–1424.10.1080/03640210802073697Search in 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.10.1515/9783111352565Search in 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.10.1075/la.6.10lobSearch in 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. 305–315.10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001Search in Google Scholar

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

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.Search in 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.Search in 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). 175–200.10.1515/CLLT.2009.008Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Sonja. 2014. Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln “ja” und “doch”: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte 238. 165–208.Search in 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.10.1016/S0079-7421(03)01010-7Search in 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). 133–142.10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.xSearch 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

Newman, John. 2011. Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11(2). 521–559.10.1590/S1984-63982011000200010Search in 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.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Jonathan W. 2007. Psychopy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162(1–2). 8–13.10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017Search in Google Scholar

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

Ramscar, Michael & Robert F. Port. 2016. How spoken languages work in the absence of an inventory of discrete units. Language Sciences 53. 58–74.10.1016/j.langsci.2015.08.002Search in Google Scholar

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

Rosseel, Yves. 2002. Mixture models of categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46(2). 178–210.10.1006/jmps.2001.1379Search in 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.Search in 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.10.1075/la.6.08schSearch in 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.Search in Google Scholar

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

Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer. 2013. Web corpus construction. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool.10.2200/S00508ED1V01Y201305HLT022Search 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 & Ulrike Sayatz. 2016. Punctuation and syntactic structure in “obwohl” and “weil” clauses in nonstandard written German. Written Language and Literacy 19(2). 212–245.10.1075/wll.19.2.04schSearch in 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.Search in 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.10.1037/15969-006Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & {Stefan Th.} Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in 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.Search 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. 51–73.10.1037/e536982012-138Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001Search in 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). 225–261.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225Search in Google Scholar

Vanpaemel, Wolf. 2016. Prototypes, exemplars and the response scaling parameter: A Bayes factor perspective. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 72. 183–190.10.1016/j.jmp.2015.10.006Search in Google Scholar

Vanpaemel, Wolf $ Gert Storms. 2008. In search of abstraction: The varying abstraction model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin $ Review 15(4). 732–749.10.3758/PBR.15.4.732Search in 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.Search in 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). 537–554.10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.006Search in Google Scholar

Voorspoels, Wouter, Wolf Vanpaemel & Gert Storms. 2011. A formal ideal-based account of typicality. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18. 1006–1014.10.3758/s13423-011-0122-9Search in Google Scholar

Vos, Riet. 1999. A grammar of partitive constructions. Tilburg: Tilburg University dissertation.Search in 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). 3–36.10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.xSearch in Google Scholar

Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in 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). 1–41.10.1515/bgsl-2015-0001Search in 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). 3–14.10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.xSearch in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-04-18

Revised: 2018-05-30

Accepted: 2018-05-30

Published Online: 2018-11-10

Published in Print: 2018-11-27

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0050

Keywords for this article

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