Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2022) ► pp.166–190

The hapax / type ratio

An indicator of minimally required sample size in productivity studies?

ORCID logo | Universiteit Gent | Vrije Universiteit Brussel

This article addresses one of the lesser-known productivity measures, namely the hapax / type ratio (HTR). Through a case study involving the Dutch semi-copula raken (“attain”), it is shown that the HTR more or less stabilizes from a certain sample size onwards. Moreover, this point of stabilization seems to coincide with an increased permanency of the hapaxes, i.e. the share of hapaxes that convert quickly to non-hapaxes is not as large as was the case at the beginning of the sampling process. Therefore, the stabilization of the HTR might be a good indicator of minimally required sample size in productivity studies, suggesting that the hapaxes are ‘non-incidental’ from this sample size onwards. However, I did not find a clear link between the onset of the stabilization of the HTR and the extent to which the inventory of types accounted for at the top of the frequency distribution is (quasi-)complete.

Keywords: productivity, hapax / type ratio, hapax / vocabulary ratio, sample size, hapax stability
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Quantitative measures gauging linguistic productivity
  • 3.Focus on the hapax / type ratio
  • 4.A sample-wide view on the shape of the hapax / type ratio
  • 5.The case of the Dutch semi-copula raken and its hapax / type ratio
    • 5.1Hapax stability
    • 5.2Completeness of the frequency summit
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19114.van
References
Baayen, R. H.
(1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp. 109–149). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Word Frequency Distributions. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics (pp. 899–919). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R.
(1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29 (5), 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, V.
(2011) How large is the core of language? In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2011 (Paper#145). University of Birmingham. [URL]
Desagulier, G.
(2016) A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12 (2), 173–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evert, S.
(2004) A simple LNRE model for random character sequences. In G. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Proceedings of JADT (pp. 411–422). Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Evert, S., & Baroni, M.
(2006) Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. In P. Danielsson & M. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. University of Birmingham. [URL]
Fan, F.
(2010) An asymptotic model for the English hapax/vocabulary ratio. Computational Linguistics, 36 (4), 631–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8 (3), 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, S.
(2018) Derivational morphology in flux: A case study of word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (1), 77–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
(2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In S. Kemmer & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 7–28). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
(2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Tobback, E.
(2010) Les verbes attributifs: Inventaire(s) et statut(s) [Copular Verbs: Inventor(-y/-ies) and Status(es)]. Langages, 179–180 (3), 79–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54 (1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1237–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, F.
(2015) Predicative Constructions: A Monostratal Montagovian Treatment. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Wettere, N.
(2018) Copularité et Productivité: Une Analyse Contrastive des Verbes Attributifs Issus de Verbes de Mouvement en Français et en Néerlandais [ Copularity and Productivity: A Contrastive Analysis of Copular Verbs Originating from Motion Verbs in French and Dutch ] [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University]. Academic Bibliography @ Ghent University. [URL]
(2021) Productivity of French and Dutch (semi-)copular constructions and the adverse impact of high token frequency. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 26 (3), 396–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A.
(2012) Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar