Volume 36, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article takes a quantitative approach to the long-term dynamics of the preterite inflection in West Germanic, with a special focus on Dutch. In a first step, we replicate two often-cited studies on English and German (Lieberman et al. 2007 and Carroll et al. 2012, respectively) by looking at Dutch. This part also tackles some methodological shortcomings in the previous studies. In a second step, we delve deeper into the evolution of the preterite morphology in Dutch in the last 1200 years, by looking at several factors which have been previously only investigated in isolation or on limited time slices. Using multiple binomial regression analysis, the various factors are studied under multifactorial control.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aitchison, Jean
    2013Language change: Progress or decay?4th edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderwald, Lieselotte
    2012 Variable past tense forms in 19th-century American English: Linking normative grammars and language change. American Speech87. 257–293. 10.1215/00031283‑1958327
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-1958327 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, Harald
    2008Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, Harald & Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin
    2005 Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language81. 666–698. 10.1353/lan.2005.0112
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0112 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailey, Christopher Gordon
    1997 The etymology of the Old High German weak verb. Newcastle upon Tyne: PhD thesis.
  6. Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable
    2013History of the English language. 6th edn.London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beckner, Clay & Andrew Wedel
    2009 The roles of acquisition and usage in morphological change. Berkeley Linguistics Society35(1). doi:  10.3765/bls.v35i1.3593
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v35i1.3593 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter
    2013 Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change3. 1–27. 10.1163/22105832‑13030105
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-13030105 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergsland, Knut & Hans Vogt
    1962 On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology3. 115–153. 10.1086/200264
    https://doi.org/10.1086/200264 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New
    2009 Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods41. 977–990. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brysbaert, Marc & Kevin Diependaele
    2013 Dealing with zero word frequencies: A review of the existing rules of thumb and suggestion for an evidence-based choice. Behavior Research Methods45. 422–430. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0270‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0270-5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82. 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carroll, Ryan, Ragnar Svare & Joseph Salmons
    2012 Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics2. 153–172. 10.1075/jhl.2.2.01car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.2.2.01car [Google Scholar]
  15. Cuskley, Christine, Martina Pugliese, Claudio Castellano, Francesca Colaiori, Vittorio Loreto & Francesca Tria
    2014 Internal and external dynamics in language: Evidence from verb regularity in a historical corpus of English. PLoS ONE9(8). e102882. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102882
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102882 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dalgaard, Peter
    2008Introductory statistics with R. 2nd edn.New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑79054‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79054-1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dammel, Antje, Jessica Nowak & Mirjam Schmuck
    2010 Strong-verb paradigm leveling in four Germanic languages: A category frequency approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics22. 337–359. 10.1017/S1470542710000097
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542710000097 [Google Scholar]
  18. De Clerck, Bernard & Klaar Vanopstal
    2015 Patterns of regularisation in British, American and Indian English: A closer look at irregular verbs with t/ed variation. InCollins, P. (ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide, 335–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. De Grauwe, Luc
    1982De Wachtendonckse psalmen en glossen: Een lexikologisch woordgeografische studie met proeve van kritische leestekst en glossaria, Deel 2. Nederland: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Smet, Isabeau, Katrien Beuls, Dirk Pijpops & Freek Van de Velde
    2017 Language-specific differences in regularization rates of the Germanic preterite. Paper presented at the23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL). San Antonio, July 31-August 4.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. De Vriendt, Sera F. L.
    1965Sterke werkwoorden en sterke werkwoordsvormen in de 16de eeuw. Brussel: Belgisch interuniversitair centrum voor neerlandistiek.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. De Vries, Matthias & Lammert te Winkel
    1851–1998Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. (gtb.inl.nl)
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Diessel, Holger
    2007 Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology25. 108–127. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dieter, Ferdinand
    1900Laut- und Formenlehre der Altgermanischen Dialekte. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Enger, Hans-Olav
    2010 How do words change inflection class? Diachronic evidence from Norwegian. Language Sciences32. 366–379. 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2009.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fertig, David
    2009 Are strong verbs really dying to fit in?Paper presented atGLAC 15, Banff, May 2.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2016 Spreading like wildfire: Morphological variation and the dynamics of the Great English Verb Regularization. Paper presented atSt. Petersburg State University, January 21.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. . Manuscript. The regularisation-through-derivation effect and the historical development of verbs in the West Germanic languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fox, John
    2003 Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software8(15). 1–27. 10.18637/jss.v008.i15
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v008.i15 [Google Scholar]
  30. Franck, Johannes
    1883Mittelniederländische Grammatik: Mit Lesestücken und Glossar. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1971Altfränkische Grammatik. 2nd edn.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gahl, Susanne
    2008 “Time” and “thyme” are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language84. 474–496. 10.1353/lan.0.0035
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0035 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gries, Stefan Th
    2013Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. 2nd edn.Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110307474
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110307474 [Google Scholar]
  34. Grimm, Jacob
    1819Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gysseling, Maurits
    1977–1987Corpus Gysseling. https://ivdnt.org/downloads/tstc-corpus-gysseling
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
    1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd edn.Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Harrell, Frank E. Jr.
    (with contributions from Charles Dupont and many others) 2015Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 3.17–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hill, Eugen
    2010 A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology: Origin and development of the Germanic weak preterite. Diachronica27(3). 411–458. 10.1075/dia.27.3.02hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.27.3.02hil [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoekstra, Eric, Anne Merkuur, Marjoleine Sloos & Jeroen van de Weijer
    2018 Calculating a pattern’s competitive strength: Competition between /æ/ and /ʌ/ in irregular simple pasts and past participles in English. The Mental Lexicon13(1). 143–157. 10.1075/ml.17019.hoe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17019.hoe [Google Scholar]
  40. Holthausen, Ferdinand
    1921Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Horst, Johannes van der
    2010Met (het) oog op morgen: Opstellen over taal, taalverandering en standaardtaal. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buehlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan
    2006 Survival ensembles. Biostatistics7(3). 355–373. 10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxj011 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hüning, Matthias, Ulrike Vogel, Ton van der Wouden & Arie Verhagen
    (eds.) 2006Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jescheniak, Jörg D. & Willem J. M. Levelt
    1994 Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition20(4). 824–843.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Koelmans, L.
    1978Inleiding tot het lezen van zeventiende-eeuwse teksten. Utrecht: Instituut De Vooys voor Nederlandse Taal- en letterkunde.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Knooihuizen, Remco & Oscar Strik
    2014 Relative productivity potentials of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica35. 173–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lass, Roger
    1990 How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics26. 79–102. 10.1017/S0022226700014432
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014432 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2006 Phonology and morphology. InHogg, Richard & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 43–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791154.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791154.003 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lehmann, Christian
    1995Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd edn.München: Lincom.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Levshina, Natalia
    2015How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak
    2007 Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature449. 713–716. 10.1038/nature06137
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mailhammer, Robert
    2007The Germanic strong verbs: Foundations and development of a new system. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198782
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198782 [Google Scholar]
  53. O’Neil, Wayne
    1978 The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A study in the causes of language change. Orbis27. 248–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Oostdijk, Nelleke, Wim Goedertier, Frank Van Eynde, Louis Boves, Jean-Pierre Martens, Michael Moortgat & Harald Baayen
    2002Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus Johannes Juliana, K. H. van Dalen-Oskam, Katrien Depuydt & T. H. Schoonheim, H. T. Aalbrecht, P. Burger, M. C. van Dalen, G. H. Dambrink, M. J.M van Diepen & K. Stooker
    (eds.) 2000Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek. (gtb.ivdnt.org)
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus Johannes Juliana, Arend Quak, T. H. Schoonheim, M. A. Mooijaart & K. Louwen
    (eds.) 2012Oudnederlands woordenboek. (gtb.ivdnt.org)
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls & Freek Van de Velde
    2015 The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic: An agent based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal5. 81–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde
    2016 Constructional contamination: how does it work and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica50(2). 543–581. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde
    2018 Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies. Constructions and Frames10(2). 269–305. 10.1075/cf.00021.pij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij [Google Scholar]
  60. Pinker, Steven
    1998 Words and rules. Lingua106. 219–242. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(98)00035‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00035-7 [Google Scholar]
  61. Prokosch, Eduard
    2009 [1939]A comparative Germanic grammar. Surrey: Tiger Xenophon.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Quak, Arend
    1981Die altmittel- und altniederfränkischen Psalmen und Glossen. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Quak, Arend & Johannes van der Horst
    2002Inleiding Oudnederlands. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2017R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Ruigendijk, Esther, Freek Van de Velde & Roel Vismans
    (eds.) 2012 Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology98. 1–176.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sanders, Willy
    1974Der Leidener Willeram. München: Wilhelm Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Santen, Ariane van
    1997 Hoe sterk zijn de sterke werkwoorden?InAriane van Santen & Marijke van der Wal (eds.), Taal in tijd en ruimte: Voor Cor van Bree bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar Historische Taalkunde en Taalvariatie aan de Vakgroep Nederlands van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 45–56. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Scott, Alan
    (ed.) 2016New directions in comparative Germanic linguistics. Special issue of theJournal of Germanic Linguistics28(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sijs, Nicoline van der
    2010Etymologiebank. (etymologiebank.nl/)
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Simpson, John & Edmund Weiner
    (eds.) 1989The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Smessaert, Hans, Johannes van der Horst & Freek Van de Velde
    (eds.) 2017 A Germanic Sandwich 2013. Special issue ofLeuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology101.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Speelman, Dirk
    2014 Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. InDylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.18spe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.18spe [Google Scholar]
  73. Strik, Oscar
    2015 Modelling analogical change: A history of Swedish and Frisian verb inflection. Groningen: PhD thesis.
  74. Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis & Torsten Hothorn
    2007 Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics8(25). www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/8/25. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  75. Strobl, Caroline, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin & Achim Zeileis
    2008 Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics9(307). www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/307. 10.1186/1471‑2105‑9‑307
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 [Google Scholar]
  76. Tack, P.
    1897Oudnederfrankische grammatica. Gent: A. Siffer.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Tagliamonte, Sali & Harald, Baayen
    2012 Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change24(2). 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  78. Ten Kate, Lambert Hz
    2001 [1723]Aenleiding tot de kennisse van het verhevene deel der Nederduitsche sprake: Eerste deel. Eds.Jan Noordegraaf en Marijke van der Wal. Alphen aan den Rijn: Uitgeverij Canaletto/Repro-Holland BV.) (www.dbnl.org/tekst/kate002aenl01_01/)
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Tops, Guy A. J.
    1974The origin of the Germanic dental preterit. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Bree, Cor
    1987Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Van Coetsem, Frans
    1990Ablaut and reduplication in the Germanic verb. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Van de Ketterij, Cornelis
    1980Grammaticale interpretatie van Middelnederlandse teksten: Instructiegrammatica. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Van den Toorn, Maarten C., Wilhelmus Pijnenburg, Arjan van Leuvensteijn & Johannes van der Horst
    1997Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 10.5117/9789053562345
    https://doi.org/10.5117/9789053562345 [Google Scholar]
  84. Van de Velde, Freek & Britta Kestemont
    2015 Using mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the determinants of regularisation of strong inflection in Dutch. Paper presented atSLE 48 Workshop. Shifting classes: Germanic strong and weak preterites and participles, Leiden, September 3.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière
    2013 On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language37. 473–489. 10.1075/sl.37.3.01int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int [Google Scholar]
  86. Van de Velde, Freek & Dirk Pijpops
    2018 Grensoverschrijdend syntactisch gedrag. InTimothy Colleman, Johan De Caluwe, Veronique De Tier, Anne-Sophie Ghyselen, Liesbet Triest, Roxane Vandenberghe & Ulrike Vogl (eds.), Woorden om te bewaren. Huldeboek voor Jacques Van Keymeulen, 433–449. Gent: UGent, Vakgroep Taalkunde, Afdeling Nederlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Van Haeringen, Coenraad B.
    1940 De taaie levenskracht van het sterke werkwoord. De Nieuwe Taalgids31. 241–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1956Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Van Helten, Willem Lodewijk
    1973 [1887]Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. Walluf: Sändig.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Van Loey, Adolphe
    1973Middelnederlandse spraakkunst: I Vormleer. Kapellen: De Sikkel.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Venables, W. N. & Brian D. Ripley
    2002Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn.New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
  92. Verwijs, Eelco, Jakob Verdam, Frederik Stoett, Willem De Vreese, G. I. Lieftinck & Anton Beekman
    1885–1941Middelnederlandsch woordenboek. (http://gtb.ivdnt.org)
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Vismans, Roel, Matthias Hüning & Fred Weerman
    (eds.) 2010 Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics22(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Vosters, Rik
    2012 Geolinguistic data and the past tense debate: Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of Dutch verb regularization. InGunther De Vogelaer & Guido Seiler (eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change, 227–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slcs.128.10vos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.128.10vos [Google Scholar]
  95. Wal, Marijke van der & Cor Van Bree
    2008Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Houten: Spectrum.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Weerman, Fred
    2006 ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ Een vergelijkende blik op ‘men’ en ‘man’. InMatthias Hüning, Ulrike Vogl, Ton Van der Wouden, & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels, 19–47. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Weerman, Fred, Mike Olson & Robert A. Cloutier
    2013 Synchronic variation and loss of case: Formal and informal language in a Dutch corpus of 17th-century Amsterdam texts. Diachronica30(3). 353–381. 10.1075/dia.30.3.03wee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.03wee [Google Scholar]
  98. Weijnen, Antonius A.
    1958Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Wickham, Hadley
    2017stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.2.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stringr
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Wickham, Hadley & François Romain
    2015dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wickham, Hadley
    2011 The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software40(1). 1–29. 10.18637/jss.v040.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i01 [Google Scholar]
  102. 2007 Reshaping data with the reshape Package. Journal of Statistical Software21(12). 1–20. 10.18637/jss.v021.i12
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12 [Google Scholar]
  103. Yang, Charles D.
    2002Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): binomial regression; Dutch; preterites; rate of change; strong verbs; weak verbs; West Germanic
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error