Cover not available
Article published In:
Asymmetries, Mismatches and Construction Grammar
Edited by Nikos Koutsoukos, Kristel Van Goethem and Hendrik De Smet
[Constructions and Frames 10:2] 2018
► pp. 269–305

Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax

Four case studies

 | KU Leuven | FWO
 | KU Leuven | FWO
 | KU Leuven
In every-day language use, two or more structurally unrelated constructions may occasionally give rise to strings that look very similar on the surface. As a result of this superficial resemblance, a subset of instances of one of these constructions may deviate in the probabilistic preference for either of several possible formal variants. This effect is called ‘constructional contamination’, and was introduced in Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016). Constructional contamination bears testimony to the hypothesis that language users do not always execute a full parse of the utterances they interpret, but instead often rely on ‘shallow parsing’ and the storage of large, unanalyzed chunks of language in memory, as proposed in Ferreira, Bailey, & Ferraro (2002), Ferreira & Patson (2007), and Dąbrowska (2014).
Pijpops & Van de Velde (2016) investigated a single case study in depth, namely the Dutch partitive genitive. This case study is reviewed, and three new case studies are added, namely the competition between long and bare infinitives, word order variation in verbal clusters, and preterite formation. We find evidence of constructional contamination in all case studies, albeit in varying degrees. This indicates that constructional contamination is not a particularity of the Dutch partitive genitive but appears to be more wide-spread, affecting both morphology and syntax. Furthermore, we distinguish between two forms of constructional contamination, viz. first degree and second degree contamination, with first degree contamination producing greater effects than second degree contamination.
Keywords: constructional contamination, corpus, Dutch, alternation, partitive genitive, long infinitive, bare infinitive, verbal clusters, weak verbs, strong verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The mechanism and effect of constructional contamination
  • 3.Four case studies of constructional contamination
    • 3.1The partitive genitive
    • 3.2Long and bare infinitives
    • 3.3Verbal clusters
    • 3.4Weak and strong preterites
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij
References (100)
References
Augustinus, L., & Van Eynde, F. (2017). A usage-based typology of Dutch and German IPP verbs. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift Voor Germaanse Filologie. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., De Vogelaer, G., Devos, M., & van der Ham, M. (2006). Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects. Vol. 1: Pronouns, Agreement and Dependencies. Amsterdam: Amsterdam university press.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.4. Retrieved from [URL]
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K., & van Trijp, R. (2016). Computational construction grammar and constructional change. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 301, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloem, J. (2016). Lexical preferences in Dutch verbal cluster ordering. In K. Bellamy, E. Karvovskaya, M. Kohlberger, & G. Saad (Eds.), ConSOLE XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (pp. 70–93). Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bloem, J., Versloot, A., & Weerman, F. (2014). Applying automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. In J. Tsujii & J. Hajic (Eds.), Proceedings of COLING 2014: the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: technical papers (pp. 1974–1984). Dublin: Dublin City University and Association for Computational LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
(2015). An agent-based model of Germanic verbal cluster word order change. In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands (CLIN). February 6, Antwerp.Google Scholar
(2017). Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences, 601, 94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, R. (2006). Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples. Linguistic Review, 23(3), 291–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 752–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1980). Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In G. Brettschneider & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (pp. 292–299). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 543–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., & Strang, A. (1996). De partitieve genitiefconstructie [The partitive genitive construction]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 1(3), 221–238.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58(2), 265–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R., Svare, R., & Salmons, J. (2012). Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 2(2), 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claes, J., & Johnson, D. E. (Forthcoming). Cognitive linguistics and the predictability of effects: Agreement in English and Spanish existentials.
Colleman, T. (2009). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences, 31(5), 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupé, G. (2015). Syntactic extension. The historical development of Dutch verb clusters. Leiden: LOT.Google Scholar
Coussé, E. (2008). Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. Dissertation, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
(2011). On ambiguous past participles in Dutch. Linguistics, 49(3), 611–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2014). Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 617–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Language in the mind and in the community. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, & D. Speelman (Eds.), Change of paradigms – new paradoxes. Recontextualizing language and linguistics (pp. 221–235). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(2), 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, I. & F. Van de Velde (Forthcoming, 2019). Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection. Diachronica 36(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, G. (2005). Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
den Besten, H., & Edmonson, J. (1983). The verbal complex in continental West-Germanic. In W. Abraham (Ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania (pp. 155–216). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Boon, T., & Geeraerts, D. (Eds.). (2005). Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal (14th ed). Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicography.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 296–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 11–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Patson, N. (2007). The “good enough” approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11, 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Friendly, M., Hong, J., Andersen, R., Firth, D., & Taylor, S. (2016). Effect displays for linear, generalized linear, and other models. R package version 3.2 .Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2010). Recontextualizing grammar: Underlying trends in thirty years of Cognitive Linguistics. In E. Tabakowska, M. Choinski, & L. Wiraszka (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in action: From theory to application and back (pp. 71–102). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. A. F. (1991). A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S. (2000). De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats: sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er’s status als presentatief signaal. Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Deygers, K., Van Aken, H., Van den Heede, V., & Speelman, D. (2000). Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands [The CONDIV-corpus of written Dutch]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5(4), 356–363. Retrieved from [URL]
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Harrell, F. (2013). rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 4.0-0. Retrieved from [URL]
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries: cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University press.Google Scholar
Heller, B. (2018). Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide. The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (1998). Adjectivale inflectie op -s: geen geval van transpositie [Adjectival inflection on -s: not a case of transposition]. In E. Hoekstra & C. Smits (Eds.), Morfologiedagen 1996 [Morphology Days 1996] (pp. 46–72). Amsterdam: P. J. Meertens-Instituut.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 131, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, J. H. (2007). From reduplication to ablaut: The class VII strong verbs of Northwest Germanic. Historische Sprachforschung / Historical Linguistics, 1201, 241–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kester, E.-P. (1996). The nature of adjectival inflection. LEd, Utrecht. Utrecht: LEdGoogle Scholar
Klooster, W. (2001). Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands: een volledig overzicht [Grammar of contemporary Dutch: A complete overview]. Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar
Knooihuizen, R., & Strik, O. (2014). Relative productivity potential of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica, 35(1), 173–200.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L. (2005). The psychological reality of local coherences in sentence processing. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1178–1183). Stresa: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Konieczny, L., Müller, D., Hachmann, W., Schwarzkopf, S., & Wolfer, S. (2009). Local syntactic coherence interpretation. Evidence from a visual world study. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1133–1138). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
König, E., & Gast, V. (2009). Understanding English-German contrasts (2nd edn.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2005). Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(3), 183–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, E., Michel, J.-B., Jackson, J., Tang, T., & Nowak, M. (2007). Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449(7163), 713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 189–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Trousdale, G. (2016). Exaptation from the perspective of construction morphology. In M. Norde & F. Van de Velde (Eds.), Exaptation and language change (pp. 163–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N., Goedertier, W., Van Eynde, F., Boves, L., Martens, J.-P., Moortgat, M., & Baayen, H. (2002). Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project. In Proceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 340–347). Retrieved from [URL]
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V., & Schuurman, I. (2013). The Construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch, theory and applications of natural language processing (pp. 219–247). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pauwels, A. (1953). De plaats van hulpwerkwoord verleden deelwoord en infinitief in de Nederlandse bijzin. Leuven: Symons.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1996). Order and structure. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., Beuls, K., & Van de Velde, F. (2015). The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic. An agent-based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 51, 81–102.Google Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Speelman, D. (2017). Alternating argument constructions of Dutch psychological verbs. A theory-driven corpus investigation. Folia Linguistica, 51(1), 207–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2015). Ethnolect speakers and Dutch partitive adjectival inflection. A corpus analysis. Taal En Tongval, 67(2), 343–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 14(1), 99–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1), 73–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna. Retrieved from [URL]
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tense of English verbs. In D. Rumelhart & J. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (pp. 216–271). Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scha, R., Bod, R., & Sima’an, K. (1999). A memory-based model of syntactic analysis: Data-oriented parsing. Journal Of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 11(3), 409–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, T. (2005). Infinitival syntax: Infinitivus pro participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (2000). Language as a complex adaptive system. In M. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, & H.-P. Schwefel (Eds.), Proceedings of PPSN VI: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 17–26). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
(2011). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Basics of fluid construction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 9(2), 178–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 62(4), 685–701. Retrieved from [URL]
Szmrecsanyi, B., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Franco, K. (2016). Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taatgen, N., & Anderson, J. (2002). Why do children learn to say “broke”? A model of learning the past tense without feedback. Cognition, 861, 123–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 355–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, R. H. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Bart, P., Kerstens, J., & Sturm, A. (1998). Grammatica van het Nederlands. Een inleiding [Grammar of Dutch. An introduction]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, F. (1990). Ablaut and reduplication in the Germanic verb. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, Vol. 11 (pp. 141–179). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2015). Schijnbare syntactische feniksen [Apparent syntactic phoenixes]. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 69–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Understanding grammar at the community level requires a diachronic perspective. Evidence from four case studies. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 22(1), 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. & D. Pijpops. 2018. Grensoverschrijdend syntactisch gedrag [Cross-border syntactic behavior]. In T. Colleman, J. De Caluwe, V. De Tier, A.-S. Ghyselen, L. Triest, R. Vandenberghe & U. Vogl (Eds.), Woorden om te bewaren. Huldeboek voor Jacques Van Keymeulen [Words to preserve. Articles in honor of Jacques Van Keymeulen] (pp. 433–449). Ghent: UGent, Department of Linguistics, research group of Dutch.Google Scholar
van der Horst, J. (2008). Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis [History of Dutch syntax]. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, F. (2004). Part of speech tagging en lemmatisering van het corpus gesproken nederlands. Retrieved from [URL]
van Noord, G. (2006). At last parsing is now operational. In P. Mertens, C. Fairon, A. Dister, & P. Watrin (Eds.), TALN 2006. Verbum Ex Machina. Actes de la 13e conference sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles (pp. 20–42). Louvain-la-Neuve: Cental.Google Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2008). Analogy and multi-level selection in the formation of a case grammar. A case study in Fluid Construction Grammar. Dissertation, University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
van Trijp, R., Steels, L., Beuls, K., & Wellens, P. (2012). Fluid construction grammar: The new kid on the block. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 63–68). Avignon: ACL.Google Scholar
von Mengden, F. (2011). Ablaut or transfixation? On the Old English strong verbs. In R. Bauer & U. Krischke (Eds.), More than words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present. Essays presented to Hans Sauer on the occasion of his 65th birthday – Part I. (pp. 123–139). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Vosters, R. (2012). Geolinguistic data and the past tense debate. Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of Dutch verb regularization. In G. De Vogelaer & G. Seiler (Eds.), The dialect laboratory. Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, A. (1993). Parameters in the theory of sentence processing: Minimal Commitment theory goes east. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22(3), 339–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., & Romain, F. (2015). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. [URL]
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German language]. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Fanego, Teresa
2024. “Don’t go getting into trouble again!”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 25:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin
2024. Corpus linguistics meets historical linguistics and construction grammar: how far have we come, and where do we go from here?. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 20:3 ► pp. 481 ff. DOI logo
Norde, Muriel & Graeme Trousdale
2024. Creativity, paradigms and morphological constructions: evidence from Dutch pseudoparticiples. Linguistics DOI logo
Sevenants, Anthe, Freek Van de Velde & Dirk Speelman
2024. Investigating lexical-semantic effects on morphosyntactic variation using elastic net regression. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory DOI logo
Bloom, Barthe
2023. Life at the intersection. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
BROWN, ESTHER
2023. The Long‐Term Accrual in Memory of Contextual Conditioning Effects. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics, ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Diessel, Holger
2023. The Constructicon, DOI logo
Zhang, Yuhan, Rachel Ryskin & Edward Gibson
2023. A noisy-channel approach to depth-charge illusions. Cognition 232 ► pp. 105346 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2022. Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction. English Studies 103:8 ► pp. 1334 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach
2022. A case of constructional contamination in English. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat
2022. Situation-bound utterances and constructional networks: The evolution of the Hebrew see-farewell family. Lingua 272 ► pp. 103328 ff. DOI logo
Kuzai, Einat & Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot
2022. Analogical Interference in Constructionalization: The Emergence of the Hebrew Desiderative ba le-X Y. Cognitive Semantics 8:1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2022. Lectal contamination. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronic Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2019. Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection. Diachronica 36:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch. Language Variation and Change 32:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.