Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Word classes
View graph of relations

Word classes: towards a more comprehensive usage-based account

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Word classes : towards a more comprehensive usage-based account. / Hollmann, Willem.

In: Studies in Language, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2012, p. 671-698.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Hollmann W. Word classes: towards a more comprehensive usage-based account. Studies in Language. 2012;36(3):671-698. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.3.08hol

Author

Hollmann, Willem. / Word classes : towards a more comprehensive usage-based account. In: Studies in Language. 2012 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 671-698.

Bibtex

@article{91cf37255b674cedab441491fae01f77,
title = "Word classes: towards a more comprehensive usage-based account",
abstract = "Structuralists and generativists define word classes distributionally (Palmer 1971,Baker 2003, Aarts 2007), while cognitive linguists take a semantic (Langacker1987a) or semantic-pragmatic approach (Croft 1991, 2001). Psycholinguisticresearch, by contrast, has shown that phonological properties also play a role(Kelly 1992, Monaghan et al. 2005). This study reports on a production experiment involving English nonce nouns and verbs. The data confirm the importance of phonology, whilst also suggesting that distributional facts are involved in lexical categorisation. Together with the existing psycholinguistic evidence, the results show that both the generative and cognitive models of word classes are too restricted. However, the usage-based model can accommodate the facts straightforwardly. This was already anticipated by Taylor (2002) but is worked out in more detail here by elaborating on his notion of phonological “subschemas” and by bringing together insights from Croft (1991, 2001) related to discourse propositional act constructions and recent suggestions by Langacker(2008b) concerning “summary scanning” and “sequential scanning”.",
keywords = "word classes, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, phonology, distribution",
author = "Willem Hollmann",
note = "Uploaded document are the first uncorrected proofs. The page nrs. do not match the ones given above as the pagination of the volume has changed. ",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1075/sl.36.3.08hol",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "671--698",
journal = "Studies in Language",
issn = "0378-4177",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Word classes

T2 - towards a more comprehensive usage-based account

AU - Hollmann, Willem

N1 - Uploaded document are the first uncorrected proofs. The page nrs. do not match the ones given above as the pagination of the volume has changed.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Structuralists and generativists define word classes distributionally (Palmer 1971,Baker 2003, Aarts 2007), while cognitive linguists take a semantic (Langacker1987a) or semantic-pragmatic approach (Croft 1991, 2001). Psycholinguisticresearch, by contrast, has shown that phonological properties also play a role(Kelly 1992, Monaghan et al. 2005). This study reports on a production experiment involving English nonce nouns and verbs. The data confirm the importance of phonology, whilst also suggesting that distributional facts are involved in lexical categorisation. Together with the existing psycholinguistic evidence, the results show that both the generative and cognitive models of word classes are too restricted. However, the usage-based model can accommodate the facts straightforwardly. This was already anticipated by Taylor (2002) but is worked out in more detail here by elaborating on his notion of phonological “subschemas” and by bringing together insights from Croft (1991, 2001) related to discourse propositional act constructions and recent suggestions by Langacker(2008b) concerning “summary scanning” and “sequential scanning”.

AB - Structuralists and generativists define word classes distributionally (Palmer 1971,Baker 2003, Aarts 2007), while cognitive linguists take a semantic (Langacker1987a) or semantic-pragmatic approach (Croft 1991, 2001). Psycholinguisticresearch, by contrast, has shown that phonological properties also play a role(Kelly 1992, Monaghan et al. 2005). This study reports on a production experiment involving English nonce nouns and verbs. The data confirm the importance of phonology, whilst also suggesting that distributional facts are involved in lexical categorisation. Together with the existing psycholinguistic evidence, the results show that both the generative and cognitive models of word classes are too restricted. However, the usage-based model can accommodate the facts straightforwardly. This was already anticipated by Taylor (2002) but is worked out in more detail here by elaborating on his notion of phonological “subschemas” and by bringing together insights from Croft (1991, 2001) related to discourse propositional act constructions and recent suggestions by Langacker(2008b) concerning “summary scanning” and “sequential scanning”.

KW - word classes

KW - cognitive linguistics

KW - psycholinguistics

KW - phonology

KW - distribution

U2 - 10.1075/sl.36.3.08hol

DO - 10.1075/sl.36.3.08hol

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 671

EP - 698

JO - Studies in Language

JF - Studies in Language

SN - 0378-4177

IS - 3

ER -