Volume 36, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Based on the number of words per meaning across the Indo-European Swadesh list, Pagel et al. (2007) suggest that frequency of use is a general mechanism of linguistic evolution. We test this claim using within-language change. From the IDS (Key & Comrie 2015) we compiled a comparative word list of 1,147 cognate pairs for Classical Latin and Modern Spanish, and 1,231 cognate pairs for Classical and Modern Greek. We scored the amount of change for each cognate pair in the two language histories according to a novel 6-point scale reflecting increasing levels of change from regular sound change to external borrowing. We find a weak negative correlation between frequency of use and lexical change for both the Latin-Spanish and Classical-Modern Greek language developments, but post hoc tests reveal that low frequency of use of borrowed words drive these patterns, casting some doubt on frequency of use as a general mechanism of language change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alonso, Maria Angeles, Angel Fernandez & Emiliano Diez
    2011 Oral frequency norms for 67,979 Spanish words. Behavior Research43. 449–458. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0062‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0062-3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, Eduardo G., Zakary L. Whichard & Adilson E. Motter
    2013 Identifying trends in word frequency dynamics. Journal of Statistical Physics151(1). 277–288. doi:  10.1007/s10955‑013‑0699‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-013-0699-7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson, Quentin D. & Russell D. Gray
    2005 Curious parallels and curious connections-phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Systematic Biology54(4). 513–26. 10.1080/10635150590950317
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150590950317 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2006a Are accurate dates an intractable problem for historical linguistics?InCarl P. Lipo, Michael J. O’Brien, Mark Collard & Stephen J. Shennan (eds.), Mapping our ancestors: Phylogenetic methods in anthropology and prehistory, 269–296. Chicago: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2006b How old is the Indo-European language family? Illumination or more moths to the flame?InPeter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 91–109. Cambridge, UK: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Atkinson, Quentin D., Andrew M. Meade, Chris Venditti, Simon J. Greenhill & Mark Pagel
    2008Languages evolve in punctuational bursts. Science319(5863). 588.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Atkinson, Quentin D., Geoff Nicholls, David Welch & Russell D. Gray
    2005 From words to dates: Water into wine, mathemagic or phylogenetic inference?Transactions of the Philological Society103(2). 93–219. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2005.00151.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2005.00151.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Babiniotis, George
    1998Dictionary of Modern Greek [Leksiko tis Neas Elinikis Glosas]. Athens: Kentro Leksikologias.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baxter, Gareth J., Richard A. Blythe, William Croft & Alan J. McKane
    2009 Modeling language change: An evaluation of Trudgill’s theory of the emergence of New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change21(2). 257–296. 10.1017/S095439450999010X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095439450999010X [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, Douglas
    1993 Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing8(4). 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowern, Claire & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2012 Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language88(4). 817–845. 10.1353/lan.2012.0081
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0081 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell & Jason Zentz
    2011 Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter-gatherer languages?PLOS ONE6(9). 1–9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0025195
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025195 [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyd-Bowman, Peter
    1954From Latin to Romance in sound charts. Kalamazoo: Kalamazoo College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bush, Nathan
    2001 Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. InJ. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 255–280. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.45.14bus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.14bus [Google Scholar]
  15. Bybee, Joan
    2002 Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change14. 261–290. 10.1017/S0954394502143018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394502143018 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bybee, Joan & Joanne Scheibman
    1999 The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics27(4). 575–596.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson
    1997 Three frequency effects in syntax. InProceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378–388. 10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bybee, Joan L.
    1985Typological studies in language: Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2011 Markedness: Iconicity, economy, and frequency. InJae Jung Song (ed.), The handbook of linguistic typology, 131–147. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2017 Grammatical and lexical factors in sound change: A usage-based approach. Language Variation and Change29. 273–300. 10.1017/S0954394517000199
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394517000199 [Google Scholar]
  22. Calude, Andreea S. & Mark Pagel
    2011 How do we use language? Shared patterns in the frequency of word use across 17 world languages. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences366(1567). 1101–1107. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0315
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0315 [Google Scholar]
  23. Campbell, Lyle
    2004Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Crane, Gregory R.
    1987–2016 Perseus digital library. www.perseus.tufts.edu
  25. Croft, William
    2000Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 Evolutionary linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology37. 219–234. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085156 [Google Scholar]
  27. Davies, Mark E.
    2002 Corpus del Español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. www.corpusdelespanol.org
  28. Dunn, Michael, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill
    2008 Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language84(4). 710–759. 10.1353/lan.0.0069
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0069 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black
    1992 An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society82(5). 1–132. 10.2307/1006517
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1006517 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fitch, W. Tecumseh
    2008 Co-evolution of phylogeny and glossogeny: There is no ‘logical problem of language evolution’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences31(5). 521–522. 10.1017/S0140525X08005128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08005128 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fosler-Lussier, Eric & Nelson Morgan
    1999 Effects of speaking rate and word frequency on pronunciation in conversational speech. Speech Communication29. 137–158. 10.1016/S0167‑6393(99)00035‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6393(99)00035-7 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gómez de Silva, Guido
    1985Elsevier’s concise Spanish etymological dictionary. Amsterdam u.a: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gray, Russell D. & Quentin D. Atkinson
    2003 Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature426. 435–9. 10.1038/nature02029
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02029 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gregory, Morgan L., W. D. Raymond, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier & Daniel Jurafsky
    1999 The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. InProceedings of the 35th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 151–166. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hare, Mary & Jeffrey L. Elman
    1995 Learning and morphological change. Cognition56(1). 61–98. 10.1016/0010‑0277(94)00655‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00655-5 [Google Scholar]
  36. Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor
    2009 The loanword typology project and the world loanword database. InMartin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 1–34. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218442.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hay, Jennifer
    2001 Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?Linguistics39(6). 1041. 10.1515/ling.2001.041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2001.041 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hay, Jennifer & Paul Foulkes
    2016 The evolution of medial /t/ over real and remembered time. Language92(2). 298–330. 10.1353/lan.2016.0036
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0036 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hooper, Joan
    1976 Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. InWilliam M. Christie Jr. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, Amsterdam, NL: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Horrocks, Geoffrey C.
    2010Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, 2nd edn.Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444318913
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318913 [Google Scholar]
  41. ILSP
    ILSP 1999–2009 Hellenic national corpus (HNC). Institute for Language and Speech Processing, Web Version 3.0, hnc.ilsp.gr, (accessedMarch 4 2015).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kaiser, Mark & Vitaly Shevoroshkin
    1988 Nostratic. Annual Review of Anthropology17. 309–329. 10.1146/annurev.an.17.100188.001521
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.17.100188.001521 [Google Scholar]
  43. Keller, Daniela Barbara & Jörg Schultz
    2013 Connectivity, not frequency, determines the fate of a morpheme. PLoS ONE8(7). 1–8. 10.1371/journal.pone.0069945
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069945 [Google Scholar]
  44. Key, Mary Ritchie & Bernard Comrie
    2015 Intercontinental Dictionary Series. https://ids.clld.org/
  45. Krug, Manfred G.
    1998 String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics26. 286–320. 10.1177/007542429802600402
    https://doi.org/10.1177/007542429802600402 [Google Scholar]
  46. Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson & Wilson Andrew
    2001Word frequencies in written and spoken english: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak
    2007 Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature449(7163). 713–71. 10.1038/nature06137
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137 [Google Scholar]
  48. McMahon, April, Paul Heggarty, Robert McMahon & Natalia Slaska
    2005 Swadesh sublists and the benefits of borrowing: An Andean case study. Transactions of the Philological Society103(2). 147–170. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2005.00148.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2005.00148.x [Google Scholar]
  49. McMahon, April & Robert McMahon
    2003 Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Transactions of the Philological Society101(1). 7–55. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00108
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00108 [Google Scholar]
  50. McMahon, April. & Robert McMahon
    2005Language classification by numbers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. McMahon, April & Robert McMahon
    2008 Genetics, historical linguistics and language variation. Language and Linguistics Compass2(2). 264–288.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Mendeloff, Henry
    1969A manual of comparative Romance linguistics: Phonology and morphology. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Nakhleh, Luay, Don Ringe & Tandy Warnow
    2005 Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language81(2). 382–420. 10.1353/lan.2005.0078
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0078 [Google Scholar]
  54. Nelson-Sathi, Shijulal, Johann-Mattis List, Hans Geisler, Heiner Fangerau, Russell D. Gray, William Martin & Tal Dagan
    2011 Networks uncover hidden lexical borrowing in Indo-European language evolution. Proceedings: Biological Sciences278(1713). 1794–1803.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Nettle, Daniel
    2007 Review of Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish sounds and linguistic evolution: A Darwinian approach to language change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Journal of Linguistics43(2). 482–486.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. NIST
    NIST 1992 Switchboard corpus: Recorded telephone conversations. National Institute of Standards and Technology Speech Disc9–1to9–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson & Andrew Meade
    2007 Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature449. 717–221. 10.1038/nature06176
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06176 [Google Scholar]
  58. Pagel, Mark, Quentin D. Atkinson, Andreea S. Calude & Andrew Meade
    2013 Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(21). 8471–8476. 10.1073/pnas.1218726110
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218726110 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pappas, Panayiotis A. & Arne O. Mooers
    2011 Phylogenetic methods in historical linguistics: Greek as a case study. Journal of Greek Linguistics11(2). 198–220. 10.1163/156658411X600007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/156658411X600007 [Google Scholar]
  60. Phillips, Betty S.
    1984 Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language60(2). 320–342. 10.2307/413643
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413643 [Google Scholar]
  61. 1994 Southern English glide deletion. American Speech69(2). 115–127. 10.2307/455696
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455696 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2001 Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. InJoan Bybee & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 123–136. Amsterdam, NL: John Bejamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.07phi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.07phi [Google Scholar]
  63. 2006Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230286610
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286610 [Google Scholar]
  64. Pluymaekers, Mark, Mirjam Ernestus & R. Harald Baayen
    2005 Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Acoustical Society of America2561–2569. 10.1121/1.2011150
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2011150 [Google Scholar]
  65. Polinsky, Maria & Ezra Van Everbroeck
    2003 Development of gender classifications: Modeling the historical change from Latin to French. Language79(2). 356–390. 10.1353/lan.2003.0131
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0131 [Google Scholar]
  66. Renfrew, Colin & David Nettle
    (eds.) 1999Nostratic: Examining a linguistic macrofamily. Cambridge, UK: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor
    2002 Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society100. 59–129. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00091
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00091 [Google Scholar]
  68. Schuchardt, Hugo
    1972[1885] On sound laws: Against the Neogrammarians. InTheo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur (eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, 39–72. Frankfurt: Athenaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Sharoff, Serge
    2005 Methods and tools for development of the Russian Reference Corpus. InAndrew Wilson, Dawn Archer & Paul Rayson (eds.), Corpus linguistics around the world, 167–180. Amsterdam, NL: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Swadesh, Morris
    1952 Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society96(4). 452–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tiersma, Peter M.
    1982 Local and general markedness. Language58(4). 832–849. 10.2307/413959
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413959 [Google Scholar]
  72. Wang, William S.-Y.
    (ed) 1977The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague, NL: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110802399
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802399 [Google Scholar]
  73. Woods, M. J.
    2001 Spanish word frequency: A historical surprise. Computers and the Humanities35(2). 231–236. 10.1023/A:1002620720223
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002620720223 [Google Scholar]
  74. Zipf, George K.
    1929 Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology40. 1–95. 10.2307/310585
    https://doi.org/10.2307/310585 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): borrowing; frequency effects; Greek; language evolution; Latin; lexical change; Spanish
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