Cover not available
Article published In:
Words & Constructions: Language complexity in linguistics and psychology
Edited by Juhani Järvikivi, Pirita Pyykkönen-Klauck and Matti Laine
[The Mental Lexicon 9:2] 2014
► pp. 338–370

Competition as a unifying concept for the study of language

 | University of Hamburg
With linguistics suffering from increasing fractionalization, it is necessary not to lose sight of the overall picture. It seems uncontroversial that the study of language consists of the following five components: processing, use, structure, variation, and change. While some of the relationships between these concepts have been investigated, a systematic integration of these components into a coherent framework is conspicuously missing. A modest attempt is made here to outline such a framework which makes the interrelationships of the components transparent. In all of these components, competition is found to play a key role. At its core, competition is a psycholinguistic effect which arises in the task of selecting an intended unit from among a number of elements concurrently activated in the processing network. The audible and visible outcome of the selection process is language use. Language structure is the prerequisite for competition in that it provides the set of competitors. When competition is low, consistent (i.e., invariant) language use emerges. When competition is high, language use is variable, i.e., synchronic variation occurs. When competition changes over time, language change takes place. Thus, it is language processing in general and competition in particular that constrains and binds together many phenomena of language use, structure, variation, and change.
Keywords: processing, language use, competition, processing, language structure, language use, language variation and language change, competition, language structure
Published online: 21 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.2.08ber
References (120)
Aarts, B. (1989). Verb-preposition constructions and small clauses in English. Journal of Linguistics, 251, 277–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., & Neeleman, A. (2010). The role of syntax and morphology in compounding. In Sergio Scalise, & Irene Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 21–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. (1982). The genitive vs. the of-construction. A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S. (2014). Synchronic and diachronic analogy in suffix rivalry: The case of -ity and -ness in English. English Language and Linguistics, 181, 497–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J.E., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 761, 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, B.J. (1980). The competing plans hypothesis: An heuristic viewpoint on the causes of errors in speech. In H.W. Dechert, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 39–49). Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1992). A dozen competing-plans techniques for inducing predictable slips in speech and action. In B.J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition (pp. 129–150). New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, B.J., & Motley, M.T. (1976). Spoonerisms as sequencer conflicts: Evidence from artificially elicited errors. American Journal of Psychology, 891, 467–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., et al. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 101, 344–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2006). Competition in English word formation. In A. van Kemenade, & B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (pp. 177–198). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Cognition, 641, 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. (1995). Sound change in child language: A study of inter-word variation. Language and Speech, 381, 331–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). The resolution of number conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics, 361, 41–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004). Similarity and contrast in segmental phonology. Linguistics, 421, 1049–1103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). The cohesiveness of English and German compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 71, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, T., & Neubauer, M. (2014). From unit-and-ten to ten-before-unit order in the history of English numerals. Language Variation and Change, 26, 21–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., Cutler, A., Eberhard, K.M., Butterfield, S., Cutting, J.C., & Humphreys, K.R. (2006). Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language, 821, 64–113. 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 Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.L. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 371, 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.Y. (1972). The time dimension: Contribution toward a theory of sound change. Foundations of Language, 81, 457–498.Google Scholar
Chen, P. (1986). Discourse and particle movement in English. Studies in Language, 101, 79–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coppock, E. (2010). Parallel grammatical encoding in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes, 251, 38–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J.A., & Gilligan, G. (1985). The suffixing preference: a processing explanation. Linguistics, 231, 723–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G.S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 931, 283–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G.S., Burger, L.K., & Svec, W.R. (1997). Language production and serial order: A functional analysis and a model. Psychological Review, 1041, 123–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G.S., & O’Seaghdha, P. (1994). Inhibition in interactive activation models of linguistic selection and sequencing. In D. Dagenbach, & T.H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 409–453). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. (1998). Syntax. In S. Romaine (Eds.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 4: 1776–1977 (pp.92–329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. (1985). Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343–365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, A. (1953). The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 651, 519–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fay, D.A., & Cutler, A. (1977). Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 81, 505–520.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V.S., & Dell, G.S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 401, 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, V.A. (1973). Appendix. In V.A. Fromkin (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence (pp. 243–269). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M.G., & Dumay, N. (2003). Lexical competition and the acquisition of novel words. Cognition, 891, 105–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S.D., Luce, P.A., & Pisoni, D.B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 281, 501–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, M., Folk, J.R., & Rapp, B. (2010). Mrs. Malaprop’s neighborhood: Using word errors to reveal neighborhood effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, J.K. (2002). Phonological neighborhood effects in aphasic speech errors: spontaneous and structured contexts. Brain and Language, 821, 113–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 105–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S.T., & Hilpert, M. (2010). Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: a multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics, 141, 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 591, 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Competing motivations. In Jae Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 148–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2004). On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde, & H. Perridon (Eds.), Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization (pp. 17–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., & Plag, I. (2004). What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 221, 565–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics, 121, 395–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Constructional change in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J.B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W.M. Christie Jr. (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 95–105). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.L., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 81, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. VII–XXVIII).Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. (1997). Competing motivations and emergence: Explaining implicational hierarchies. Linguistic Typology, 11, 5–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (2000). Auxiliary marginalities: The case of try . In J.M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora galore. Analyses and techniques in describing English (pp. 115–124). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1994). Morphosyntactic variation. In K. Beals et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2: The parasession on variation in linguistic theory (pp. 180–201). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Krug, M. (1998). String frequency. Journal of English Linguistics, 261, 286–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, H. (1990). Phonological constraints on blending in English as a case for phonology-morphology interface. Yearbook of Morphology, 31, 1–20.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1980). Slips of the tongue as neuromuscular evidence for a model of speech production. In H.D. Dechert, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 21–26). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., & Maddieson, I. (1988). Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In L.M. Hyman, & C.N. Li (Eds.), Language, speech and mind (pp. 62–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H. (2000). Livelier or more lively? Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives. In J.M. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora galore. Analyses and techniques in describing English (pp. 125–132). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A. (2011). Help vs. help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics, 151, 499–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohse, B., Hawkins, J.A., & Wasow, T. (2004). Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language, 801, 238–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luick, K. (1964). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Bernhard Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
MacKay, D.G. (1969). Forward and backward masking in motor systems. Kybernetik, 61, 57–64.Google Scholar
. (1987). The organization of perception and action. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J.F. Kroll, & A.M.B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1968). The inflectional paradigm as an occasional determinant of sound change. In W.P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics (pp. 21–64). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken-word recognition. Cognition, 251, 71–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J.J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 207–263.Google Scholar
McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 1–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMillan, C.T., Corley, M., & Lickley, R.J. (2009). Articulatory evidence for feedback and competition in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 241, 44–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQueen, J.M., Norris, D., & Cutler, A. (1994). Competition in spoken word recognition: Spotting words in other words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 201, 621–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change, 221, 397–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Deutsch, A., Frost, R., Schreuder, R., de Long, N.H., & Baayen, R.H. (2005). Changing places: A cross-linguistic perspective on frequency and family size in Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 531, 496–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. (1994). Competing motivations and synchronic analysis. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 471, 67–77.Google Scholar
Niemi, J., & Laine, M. (1997). Slips of the tongue as linguistic evidence: Finnish word initial segments and vowel harmony. Folia Linguistica, 311, 161–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S.G. (2005). Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech. Speech Communication, 471, 43–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, D. (1994). Shortlist: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 521, 189–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J.M., & Cutler, A. (1995). Competition and segmentation in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 211, 1209–1228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. (1997). Dative alternation from a cognitive perspective. In B. Smieja, & M. Tasch (Eds.), Human contact through language and linguistics (pp. 107–126). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Peterson, R.R., Dell, G.S., & O’Seaghdha, P. (1989). A connectionist model of form-related priming effects. In G.M. Olson, & E.E. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 196–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petyt, K.M. (1985). Dialect and accent in industrial West Yorkshire. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B.S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language, 601, 320–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, S. (1999). Phrase structures in competition. Variation and change in Old English word order. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pozdniakov, K., & Segerer, G. (2007). Similar place avoidance: A statistical universal. Linguistic Typology, 111, 307–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riddle, E.M. (1985). A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity . In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical semantics. Historical word-formation (pp. 435–461). Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (2013). The construction cannot help –ing and its rivals in Modern English. In H. Hesselgård, J. Ebeling, & S.O. Ebeling (Eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis (pp. 113–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (1987). A performance model for a natural theory of linguistic change. In A. G. Ramat, O. Corruba, & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 517–533). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schendl, H. (1997). Morphological variation and change in early Modern English: my/mine, thy/thine . In Raymond Hickey, & Stanislaw Puppel (Eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling. Vol. 1: Language history (pp. 179–191). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlücker, B., & Matthias, H. (2009). Compounds and phrases. A functional comparison between German A + N compounds and corresponding phrases. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 211, 209–234.Google Scholar
Schlüter, J. (2009a). Consonant or ‘vowel’? A diachronic study of initial <h> from Early Modern English to nineteenth-century English. In D. Minkova (Ed.), Phonological weakness in English (pp. 168–196). Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009b). Weak segments and syllable structure in Middle English. In D. Minkova (Ed.), Phonological weakness in English (pp. 199–236). Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shallice, T., & McGill, J. (1978). The origins of mixed errors. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and Performance VII (pp. 193–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1979). Speech error evidence for a serial-ordering mechanism in sentence production. In W.E. Cooper, & Walker E.C.T. (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 295–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, L.M., & Pisoni, D.B. (1986). Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 141, 230–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J.P. (1985). An interactive activation model of language production. In A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 11, pp. 143–186). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (1992). The reliability and replicability of naturalistic speech error data. In B.J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition (pp. 195–215). New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J.P., & MacWhinney, B. (1986). Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition, 141, 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, J.P., Pisoni, D.B., & Hathaway, S.N. (1985). Effects of alcohol intoxication on phonological errors in normal speech. Research on Speech Perception, Progress Report, 111, 1–11.Google Scholar
Szmreczanyi, B., & Hinrichs, L. (2008). Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English. In T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta, & M. Korhonen (Eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation (pp. 291–309). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A., & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 151, 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. (1991). Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Historical English syntax (pp. 439–467). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 11, 179–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ueno, M., & Polinsky, M. (2009). Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO-OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics, 451, 675–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F. (1998). The choice between adverbs and adverbial phrases. In R. Schulze (Ed.), Making meaningful choices in English (pp. 259–275). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S. (1997). The neighbourhood characteristics of malapropisms. Language and Speech, 401, 211–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Influence of onset density on spoken-word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 281, 270–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Stanner, M.K. (2006). The curious case of competition in Spanish speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 211, 760–770. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, W.S.-Y. (1969). Competing change as a cause of residue. Language, 451, 9–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behaviour. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Werner, O. (1987). Natürlichkeit und Nutzen morphologischer Irregularität. In N. Boretzky, W. Enninger, & T. Stolz (Eds.), Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren (pp. 289–316). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Wright, R. (2003). Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Phonetic interpretation. Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 75–87). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C.D. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Ilioaia, Mihaela
2024. Constructing Meaning: Historical Changes in mihi est and habeo Constructions in Romanian. Languages 9:2 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Nagano, Akiko, Alexandra Bagasheva & Vincent Renner
2024. Chapter 1. Towards a competition-based word-formation theory. In Competition in Word-Formation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 284], ► pp. 1 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
Hartmann, Stefan
2021. Diachronie der Zukunft. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 143:3 ► pp. 364 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2021. Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren
2019. A corpus-based view on the (aspectual-)semantics of Modern English nominalizations. Language Sciences 73 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Berg, Thomas
2018. Frequency and serial order. Linguistics 56:6 ► pp. 1303 ff. DOI logo
Smet, Hendrik De, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem
2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
HOFFMANN, THOMAS
2017. Construction Grammar as Cognitive Structuralism: the interaction of constructional networks and processing in the diachronic evolution of English comparative correlatives. English Language and Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Morford, Jill P. & Phyllis Perrin Wilcox
2016. A tale of two articulators. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6:6 ► pp. 792 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 september 2024. 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.