Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus LinguisticsVol. 21:2 (2016) ► pp.250–271
The root of ruthless
Individual variation as a window on mental representation
Linguistic variation between individuals must be linked to how linguistic material is mentally represented. Therefore, by examining individual variation, light can be shed on the nature of mental representation itself. This paper presents an individual differences study of semi-opaque derivations (e.g. ruthless) to establish whether their representations are mentally associated to those of fully segmentable forms with the same suffix (e.g. sightless). This way, a prediction of connectionist and exemplar models of morphology is tested, namely that to language users semi-opaque forms are likely to retain some degree of internal complexity, despite the fact that they are not segmentable. Using corpus data, it is demonstrated that individuals who rely more heavily on the segmentable forms are also more likely to use the semi-opaque forms. This pattern in the variation across individuals indicates that semi-opaque derivations are not represented independently of the derivational paradigm from which they historically derive.
References (20)
Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Barlow, M. (2013). Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478.
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, T. (1994). Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in Paradigmatic Morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (pp. 1–26). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Booij, G. (2007). Construction morphology and the lexicon. In F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & N. Hathout (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes. Morphology in Toulouse (pp. 34–44). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410.
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D.I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language, 58(2), 265–289.
De Smet, H. (2016). How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 83–102.
Gonnerman, L.M., Seidenberg, M.S., & Andersen, E.S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 323–345.
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding Morphology. London: Arnold.
Hay, J.B., & Baayen, R.H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 342–348.
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. i–xxvii). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Vol. 2. Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Mollin, S. (2009). “I entirely understand” is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 367–392.
Plag, I. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, H.-J., & Mantlik, A. (2015). Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia, 133(4), 583–623.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Hoffmeister, Toke
2024. Explaining the Dynamics and Stability of Dialects: A Representational Approach. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 32:1 ► pp. 123 ff. 
Audring, Jenny
2022. Advances in Morphological Theory: Construction Morphology and Relational Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 39 ff.
Anthonissen, Lynn
2020. Cognition in construction grammar: Connecting individual and community grammars. Cognitive Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 309 ff.
Noël, Dirk
2016. For a radically usage-based diachronic construction grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30 ► pp. 39 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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.