Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:42:10.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The analogical modeling of linguistic categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2015

STEVE CHANDLER Open the ORCID record for STEVE CHANDLER [Opens in a new window]
STEVE CHANDLER*
Affiliation:
University of Idaho
*
* Address for correspondence: Steve Chandler, Department of English, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844. e-mail: chandler@uidaho.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years proponents of usage-based linguistics have singled out ‘categorization’ as possibly the fundamental cognitive operation underlying the acquisition and use of language. Despite this increasing appeal to the importance of categorization, few researchers have yet offered explicit interpretations of how linguistic categories might be represented in the brain other than vague allusions to prototype theory, especially as implemented in connectionist-like frameworks. In this paper, I discuss in some detail the implications of superimposing the theoretical representations of linguistic structures onto domain-general models of categorization. I first review the evidence that instance-based, or exemplar-based, models of categorization provide empirically and theoretically better models of both domain-general categorization and of linguistic categorization than do the most commonly cited alternative models. I then argue that of the three exemplar-based models currently being applied to linguistic data, Skousen’s Analogical Model (AM) appears to provide the simplest, most straightforward account of the data and that it appears to be fully compatible with our current understanding of the psychological capabilities and operations that underlie categorization behavior.

Keywords

linguistic categoriesanalogical modelingexemplar-based modelingprototype theory
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 52 - 87
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203–231.Google Scholar
Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 90, 119–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashby, F. Gregory (1992). Multidimensional models of categorization. In Ashby, F. G. (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 449–483). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2010). Demythologizing the word frequency effect: a discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 436–461.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiations as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629–654.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9, 435–440.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S., Mattys, S. L., & Gage, S. H. (2009). Preserved explicit knowledge of a forgotten childhood language. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1064–1069.Google Scholar
Buchanan, L., Brown, N. R., Cabeza, R., & Maitson, C. (1999). False memories and semantic lexicon arrangement. Brain and Language, 68, 172–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bürki, A., Alario, F., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2011). Lexical representations of phonological variants: evidence from pseudohomophone effects in different regiolects. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 424–442.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1988). The emergent lexicon. In Gruber, M. C., Higgins, D., Olson, K. S., & Wysocki, T. (Eds.), CLS 34: the panels (pp. 421–435). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425–455.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2013). Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, S. (1998). Instance-based reference for past-tense verb forms: an experimental study. Paper presented to the First International Conference on the Mental Lexicon in Edmonton, Alberta, 3 September, 1998. Google Scholar
Chandler, S. (2002). Skousen’s analogical approach as an exemplar-based model of categorization. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chandler, S. (2009). Exemplar-based models. In Eddington, D. (Ed.), Experimental quantitative linguistics (pp. 100–158). München: Lincom Europa Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, S. (2010). The English past tense: analogy redux. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 371–417.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Church, B. A., & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 521–533.Google Scholar
Cohen, B., & Murphy, G. L. (1987). Models of concepts. Cognitive Science, 8, 27–58.Google Scholar
Crick, F. (1989). The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature, 337, 129–132.Google Scholar
Croft, W. D. (2004). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. Construction Grammar(s): cognitive and cross-language dimensions. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (Eds.), Constructional approaches to language, vol. 3 (pp. 273–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. D., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daelemans, W. (2002). A comparison of analogical modeling to memory-based language processing. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 157–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Daelemans, W., & van den Bosch, A. (2005). Memory-based language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deese, J. (1960). Frequency of usage and number of words in free recall: the role of association. Psychological Report, 7, 337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derks, P. L., & Paclisanu, I. (1967). Simple strategies in binary prediction by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(2), 278–284.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. (1964 [1885]). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Eddington, D. (2000). Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology. Lingua, 110, 281–298.Google Scholar
Eddington, D. (2002). A comparison of two analogical models: Tilburg Memory-based Learning versus analogical modeling. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 141–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eddington, D. (2004). Issues in modeling language processing analogically. Lingua, 114, 849–871.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2004). An alternative view of the mental lexicon. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 301–306.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547–582.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2011). Lexical knowledge without a mental lexicon? Mental Lexicon, 60, 1–33.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. L., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A. Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: a connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Predicting the unpredictable: interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language, 79(1), 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1959). A random-walk model for choice behavior. In Arrow, K. J., Karlin, S., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Mathematical methods in the social sciences (pp. 265–276). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1986a). Memory storage and retrieval processes in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 155–174.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1986b). Array models for category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 500–549.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. (1994). Classification and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, J., & Narayanyan, S. (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385–392.Google Scholar
Földiák, P. (1998). What’s wrong with prototypes? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 471–472.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). TIME and THYME are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word duration in spontaneous speech. Language, 84, 474–496.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. (1999). Why mental models must be embodied. In Rickheit, G. & Habel, C. (Eds.), Mental models in discourse processing and reasoning (pp. 77–90). Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. (1996). Words and voices: episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231–262.Google Scholar
Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: from interactive activation to adaptive resonance. Cognitive Science, 11, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (1997). Conceptual combination. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 133–159). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts and prototypes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 46, 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1977). Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 321–338.Google Scholar
Hinton, G. E. (1981). Implementing semantic networks in parallel hardware. In Hinton, G. E. & Anderson, J. (Eds.), Parallel models of associative memory (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., Quilan, P. T., & Besner, D. (1987). Orthographic priming: qualitative differences between priming from identified and unidentified primes. In Coltheart, M. (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 105–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jacoby, L. L., & Brooks, L. R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: memory, perception, and concept learning. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 18 (pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Joanisse, M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after brain injury: a connectionist model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA, 96, 7592–7597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keuleers, E. (2008). Memory-based learning of inflectional morphology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social contexts. Studium Generale, 23, 30–87.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. N. & Shuy, R. (Eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English (pp. 340–373). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipp, O. V., Siddle, D. A. T., & Vaitl, I. D. (1992). Latent inhibition in humans: single-cue conditioning revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 115–125.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400.Google Scholar
Lovett, M. (1998). Choice. In Anderson, J. R. & LaBiere, C. (Eds.), The atomic components of thought (pp. 255–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C. (1989). An on-line investigation of prototype and exemplar strategies in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 539–555.Google ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 465–472.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). A distributed model of human learning and memory. In McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2: psychological and biological models (pp. 170–215). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect: the neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44(3), 295–323.Google Scholar
McLaren, I. P. L., Kaye, H., & Mackintosh, N. K. (1989). An associative theory of the representation of stimuli: applications to perceptual learning and latent inhibition. In Morris, R. G. M. (Ed.), Parallel distributed processing: implications for psychology and neurobiology (pp. 102–130). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 28(3), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1981). Linear separability in classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 355–368.Google Scholar
Messick, S. J., & Solley, C. M. (1957). Probability learning in children: some exploratory studies. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 90, 23–32.Google Scholar
Moss, H. E., Hare, M. L., Day, P., & Tyler, L. K. (1994). A distributed memory model of the associative boost in semantic priming. Connection Science, 6(4), 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12, 529–562.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakisa, R., Plunkett, K., & Hahn, U. (2000). Single- and dual-route models of inflectional morphology. In Broeder, P. & Murre, J. (Eds.), Models of language acquisition (pp. 201–222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 104–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Similarity scaling and cognitive process models. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 25–53.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M., & Zaki, S. R. (1998). Dissociations between categorization and recognition in amnesic and normal individuals: an exemplar-based interpretation. Psychological Science, 9, 247–255.Google Scholar
Oh, J. S., Au, T. K., & Jun, S. (2010). Early childhood language memory in the speech perception of international adoptees. Journal of Child Language, 37, 1123–1132.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9, 35–58.Google Scholar
Papeo, L., Negri, G. A. L., Zadini, A., & Rumiati, R. I. (2010). Action performance and action word understanding: evidence of double dissociations in left-damaged patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 428–461.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds.), Frequency effects and emergent grammar (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, C. & Warner, N. (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 7 (pp. 101–139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past-tense debate. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456–463.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353–363.Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1970). Retention of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 83, 304–308.Google Scholar
Prior, A., & Bentin, S. (2008). Word associations are formed incidentally during sentential semantic integration. Acta Psychologica, 127, 57–71.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M. (2002). The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 45–94.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.Google Scholar
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 1–20.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In Warren, N. (Ed.), Advances in cross-cultural psychology, vol. I (pp. 177–206). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.Google Scholar
Ross, B. H., & Makin, V. S. (1999). Prototype versus exemplar models in cognition. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 205–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning past tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing, vol. 2: psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1974). Memory in reading and listening to discourse. Memory & Cognition, 2, 95–100.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., & Church, B. A. (1992). Auditory priming: implicit and explicit memory for words and voices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 915–930.Google ScholarPubMed
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2011). Formulaic sequences: Do they exist and do they matter? Mental Lexicon, 6, 171–196.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). A behavioral model of rational choice. In Simon, H. A. (Ed.), Models of man, social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting (pp. 241–260). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (1989). Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (1992). Analogy and structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (1998). Natural statistics in language modeling. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 5(3), 246–255.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (2002a). The basics of analogical modeling. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (2002b). Issues in analogical modeling. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 27–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skousen, R. (2009). Expanding analogical modeling into a general theory of language prediction. In Blevins, J. P. & Blevins, J. (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: form and acquisition (pp. 164–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R. (1990). Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experiences. In Srull, T. K. & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition, vol. III (pp. 1–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. K. (1997). Perceiving and remembering: category stability, variability and development. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 161–195). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 1–23.Google Scholar
Springer, K., & Murphy, G. L. (1992). Feature availability in conceptual combination. Psychological Science, 3, 111–117.Google Scholar
Stuart, G., & Hulme, C. (2000). The effects of word co-occurrence on short-term memory: associative links in long-term memory affect short-term memory performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 796–802.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic categorization prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2015). Prototype effects in grammar. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), The handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tenpenny, P. L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 339–363.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006). Construction grammar for kids. Constructions, SV1-11.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T., Pancheva, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D., & Hickok, G. (2005). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasias. Brain and Language, 93, 185–238.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, A. (2002). Extending k-NN analogy with instance families. In Skousen, R., Lonsdale, D., & Parkinson, D. B. (Eds.), Analogical modeling: an exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 209–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Westbury, C., Buchanan, L., & Brown, N. R. (2002). Sounds of the neighborhood: false memories and the structure of the phonological lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 622–651.Google Scholar
Wettler, M., Rapp, R., & Sedlmeier, P. (2005). Free word associations correspond to contiguities between words in texts. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12(2/3), 111–122.Google Scholar
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1987). Preservation of specific experiences in the representation of general knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 3–17.Google Scholar
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1997). The representation of general and particular knowledge. In Lamberts, K. & Shanks, D. (Eds.), Knowledge, concepts and categories (pp. 335–370). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wickelgren, W. A. (1976). Memory storage dynamics. In Estes, W. K. (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, vol. 4 (pp. 321–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J. (1997). When concepts combine. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 167–183.Google Scholar