Volume 27, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article addresses one of the lesser-known productivity measures, namely the hapax / type ratio (HTR). Through a case study involving the Dutch semi-copula (“attain”), it is shown that the HTR more or less stabilizes from a certain sample size onwards. Moreover, this point of stabilization seems to coincide with an increased permanency of the hapaxes, i.e. the share of hapaxes that convert quickly to non-hapaxes is not as large as was the case at the beginning of the sampling process. Therefore, the stabilization of the HTR might be a good indicator of minimally required sample size in productivity studies, suggesting that the hapaxes are ‘non-incidental’ from this sample size onwards. However, I did not find a clear link between the onset of the stabilization of the HTR and the extent to which the inventory of types accounted for at the top of the frequency distribution is (quasi-)complete.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baayen, R. H.
    (1992) Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. InG. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991 (pp.109–149). Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2001) Word Frequency Distributions. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑0844‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0844-0 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. InA. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics (pp.899–919). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R.
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cvrček, V.
    (2011) How large is the core of language?InProceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2011 (Paper#145). University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2011/Paper-145.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Desagulier, G.
    (2016) A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 173–219. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Evert, S.
    (2004) A simple LNRE model for random character sequences. InG. Purnelle, C. Fairon, & A. Dister (Eds.), Proceedings of JADT (pp.411–422). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Evert, S., & Baroni, M.
    (2006) Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. InP. Danielsson & M. Wagenmakers (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/corpus/publications/conference-archives/2005-conf-e-journal.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fan, F.
    (2010) An asymptotic model for the English hapax/vocabulary ratio. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 631–637. 10.1162/coli_a_00013
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 369–390. 10.1017/langcog.2016.17
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.17 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hartmann, S.
    (2018) Derivational morphology in flux: A case study of word-formation change in German. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(1), 77–119. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0146
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0146 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M.
    (2000) Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. InS. Kemmer & M. Barlow (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.7–28). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2014) The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1(1), 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lauwers, P., & Tobback, E.
    (2010) Les verbes attributifs: Inventaire(s) et statut(s) [Copular Verbs: Inventor(-y/-ies) and Status(es)]. Langages, 179–180(3), 79–113. 10.3917/lang.179.0079
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.179.0079 [Google Scholar]
  19. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  21. Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. 10.1515/ling.2011.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.035 [Google Scholar]
  22. Van Eynde, F.
    (2015) Predicative Constructions: A Monostratal Montagovian Treatment. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Wettere, N.
    (2018) Copularité et Productivité: Une Analyse Contrastive des Verbes Attributifs Issus de Verbes de Mouvement en Français et en Néerlandais [Copularity and Productivity: A Contrastive Analysis of Copular Verbs Originating from Motion Verbs in French and Dutch] [Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University]. Academic Bibliography @ Ghent University. hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8585791
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2021) Productivity of French and Dutch (semi-)copular constructions and the adverse impact of high token frequency. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 26(3), 396–428. 10.1075/ijcl.19043.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19043.van [Google Scholar]
  25. Zeldes, A.
    (2012) Productivity in Argument Selection from Morphology to Syntax. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110303919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303919 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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