Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T21:21:07.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Frequency and Corpora

from Part VI - Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Péter Rácz ,
Viktória Papp  and
Jennifer Hay
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 685 - 709
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1999. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Eduardo G.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Motter, Adilson E.. 2009. Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS One 4.ll. e7678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anshen, Frank, and Aronoff, Mark. 1997. Morphology in real time. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 9–12.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1980. The relevance of productivity in a synchronic description of word formation. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Morphology: Papers prepared for the International Conference on Historical Morphology Held at Boszkowo, Poland, 15–18 March 1978, 71–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 2001. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 237–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aslin, Richard N.; Saffran, Jenny R., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9.4, 321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Edward T.; Bernstein, Lynne E., and Tucker, Paula E.. 2000. Is subjective word familiarity a meter of ambient language? A natural experiment on effects of perceptual experience. Memory and Cognition 28.5, 789–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992a. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992b. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitatie Linguistics 1.1, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Luedeling, A. and Kyto, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 909–19. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2010. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon 5, 436–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada 11.2, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Hendrix, Peter. 2011. Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards a processing model based on discriminative learning. In Empirically examining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models, Isa workshop.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald; Piepenbrock, Richard, and van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX Lexical Database. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald; Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37.1, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald; Milin, P., Filipovic Durdevic, D., Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Paul. 2010. Diachronic variation. In Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics, 57–80. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Balota, David A.; Pilotti, Maura, and Cortese, Michael J. 2001. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition 29.4, 639–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Alan; Brenier, Jason, Gregory, Michelle, Giraud, Cynthia, and Jurafsky, Dan. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60, 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2011. A diachronic frequency account of the allomorphy of some grammatical markers. Journal of Linguistics 47.1, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R.; Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26, 1–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79.4, 737–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burani, C., and Caramazza, A.. 1987. Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.5, 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 378–88. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Chapman, Don, and Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical Modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.2, 333–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciszek, Ewa. 2012. The Middle English suffix -ish: Reasons for decline in productivity. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 47.2–3, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M.; Mullennix, John, Shernoff, Eve, and Yelen, Jennifer. 1990. Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16.6, 1084–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Dabrowska, 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 58.4, 931–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, W.; Zavrel, J., van der Sloot, K., and van den Bosch, A.. 2007. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 6.1, Reference Guide. Tech. rep. ILK Research Group Technical Report Series no. 07-07.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-based Study of Derivation, Topics in English Linguistics 20. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, and Cowie, Claire. 2002. Diachronic word-formation and studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In Dfaz Vera, J. E. (ed.), A Changing World of Words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics, 410–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed April 18, 2016).Google Scholar
de Jong, Ninja; Schreuder, Robert, and R. Harald Baayen, . 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 42, 390–405.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28.1, 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1984. Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113.2, 256–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Gonnerman, L.; Seidenberg, M. S., and Andersen, E.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 323–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Gries, Stefan T. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13.4, 403–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. Language and Computers 71.1, 197–212.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2011. Frequency tables: Tests, effect sizes, and explorations. In Glynn, Dylan and Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics, 365–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2014a. Corpus and quantitative methods. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics, 279–300. London and, New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2014b. Quantitative corpus approaches to linguistic analysis: Seven or eight levels of resolution and the lessons they teach us. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Kyto, Merja, Claridge, Claudia, and Smith, Jeremy (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora 3.1, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14.3, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Newman, John 2013. Research methods in Linguistics chap. Creating and Using Corpora. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39.6, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 203–35.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9.7, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, Jennifer B., Jannedy, Stefanie, and Bod, Rens (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2011. Diachronic collostructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In Allan, Kathryn and Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics, Topics in English Linguistics 73, 133–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin, and Gries, Stefan T.. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24.4, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinneburg, Alexander; Mannila, Heikki, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2007. How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22.2, 137–50.Google Scholar
Johnston, Robert, and Barry, Christopher. 2006. Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition 13, 789–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaunisto, Mark. 2009. The rivalry between English adjectives ending in -ive and -ory. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, Alpo, and Tyrkko, Jukka (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), 74–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Alan; Hill, Robin, and Pynte, Joel. 2003. The Dundee Corpus. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Eye Movement. University of Dundee.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, and Grefenstette, Gregory. 2003. Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics 29.3, 333–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74, 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostić, Aleksandar. 1995. Information load constraints on processing inflected morphology. In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, 317–44. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kostić, Aleksandar; Markovic, Tanja, and Baucal, Aleksandar. 2003. Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co-implicative cognitive domains? In Harald Baayen, R. and Schreuder, Robert (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (TiLSM) 151, 1–44. Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuc̆era, Henry, and Francis, Winthrop Nelson. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Kuc̆era, Karol. 2007. Mapping the time continuum: A major raison d’être for diachronic corpora. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics Birmingham 2007, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2008. Sociolinguistic patterns in grammaticalization: He, they, and those in human indefinite reference. Language Variation and Change 20, 155–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke, and Evert, Stefan. 2005. The emergence of non-medical -itis: Corpus evidence and qualitative analysis. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 315–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., and Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Medina Urrea, Alfonso. 2009. Toward a comparison of unsupervised diachronic morphological profiles. Language and Computers 71, 29–45.Google Scholar
Milin, Petar; Kuperman, Victor, Kostic, Aleksandar, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2009. Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 214–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermin; Bertram, Raymond, Haikio, Tuomo, Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2004a. Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1271–8.Google Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermin; Bertram, Raymond, Kostic, Aleksandar, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2004b. Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94.1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Gender differences in the evolution of Standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28.1, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pappas, Panayiotis A. 2001. The microcosm of a morphological change: Variation in thelo + infinitive futures and ethela + infinitive counterfactuals in Early Modern Greek. Diachronica 18.1, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2012. Burstiness of verbs and derived nouns. In Santos, Diana, Lindén, Krister, and Ng’ang’a, Wanjiku (eds.), Shall We Play the Festschrift Game? Essays on the Occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 6Oth Birthday, 99–115. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Topics in English Linguistics 28. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2009. Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85, 106–49.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo; Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Harald Baayen, R., et al. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics 3.2, 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasada, S., and Pinker, S., 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8.1, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 2005. The diffusion of subject you: A case in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17.1, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R.; Newport, Elissa L., and Aslin, Richard N.. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35.4, 606–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Säily, Tanja. 2008. Productivity of the Suffixes -ness and -ity in 17th Century English Letters: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Master’s thesis, Helsinki University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Säily, Tanja 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7.1, 119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Säily, Tanja, and Suomela, Jukka. 2009. Comparing type counts: The case of women, men and -ty in early English letters. In Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, 87–109. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, Laurie (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, 131–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Robert, and R. Harald Baayen, . 1997. How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37.1, 118–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 2002. Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-based Approach to Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stichauer, Pavel. 2009. Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of deverbal nouns in -mento, -zione and -gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th century. In Montermini, Fabio, Boy, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 138–47. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition 7.4, 263–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tily, Harry; Gabi, Susanne, Arnon, Jubal, Snider, Neal, Kothari, Anubha, and Bresnan, Joan. 2009. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 1.2, 147–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English, Linguistische Arbeiten 527. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Abby, and Hay, Jennifer B.. 2011. Congruence between “word age” and “voice age” facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology 2.1, 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witten, I. H.; Frank, E., Trigg, L., Hall, M., Holmes, G., and Cunningham, S. J.. 1999. Weka: Practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. ICONIP/ANZIIS/ANNES, 99, 192–6.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zséder, Attila; Recski, Gabor, Varga, Daniel, and Kornai, Andras. 2012. Rapid creation of large-scale corpora and frequency dictionaries. In Calzolari, Nicoletta (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 1462–5. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association (ELBA).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×