1887
Volume 74, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0108-8416
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9715
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present paper focuses on the interaction of factors that conditioned analogical developments in Old English nominal paradigms. They include especially the absolute and relative frequency of occurrence, the salience of inflectional exponents, the formal inflectional overlap across paradigms, functional factors, semantics and syllable structure (stem weight). They could work in two opposite directions, namely towards retaining the etymological inflections or they could facilitate the adoption of analogical endings. The significance of individual factors for the reorganisation of nominal paradigms is investigated by employing a statistical analysis (multivariate logistic regression) which allows us to rank them. The analysis demonstrates that the attested inflectional patterns can largely be explained by an interaction of three factors, namely salience and frequency, which can be linked to the cognitive aspects of storage and retrieval of linguistic information, and the overlap of inflectional forms across paradigms, which is a manifestation of analogical pressure in the paradigms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00047.ada
2021-04-19
2021-05-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamczyk, E.
    2018Reshaping of the nominal inflection in Early Northern West Germanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/nss.31
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nss.31 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2019 The dynamics of changes in the early English inflection: Evidence from the Old English nominal system. In C. Claridge & B. Bös (eds.), Historical syntax: Papers from the 19th Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL), Duisburg-Essen 22–26 August 2016, 9–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adamczyk, E. & A. Versloot
    2019 Phonological constraints on morphology: Evidence from Old English nominal inflection. Folia Linguistica40(1). 153–176. 10.1515/flih‑2019‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2019-0008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen, C. L.
    1995Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blevins, J. P.
    2004 Inflection classes and economy. In G. Müller , L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197501.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197501.51 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
    2012Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110294002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Booij, G.
    1996 Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3716‑6_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boutkan, D.
    1995The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    1995 Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes10(5). 425–455. 10.1080/01690969508407111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407111 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2007Frequency of use and the organisation of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  12. Campbell, A.
    1977Old English grammar (reprint of the first edition 1959). Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbett, G. , A. Hippisley , D. Brown & P. Marriott
    2001 Frequency, regularity and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 201–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.11cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.11cor [Google Scholar]
  14. Dammel, A. & S. Kürschner
    2008 Complexity in nominal plural allomorphy: A contrastive survey of ten Germanic languages. In M. Miestamo , K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 243–262. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.94.15dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.94.15dam [Google Scholar]
  15. Dammel, A. , S. Kürschner & D. Nübling
    2010 Pluralallomorphie in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Konvergenzen und Divergenzen in Ausdrucksverfahren und Konditionierung. In A. Dammel , S. Kürschner & D. Nübling (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik, 587–642. Hildesheim: Olms.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Dehaene, S.
    2003 The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner Law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(4). 145–147. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00055‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00055-X [Google Scholar]
  17. Diessel, H.
    2004The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486531
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486531 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology25 (2). 104–123. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N. C.
    2002 Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24. 297–339. 10.1017/S0272263102002140
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002140 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N. C. & L. Collins
    2009 Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal93. 329–335. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00893.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Gardani, F.
    2013Dynamics of morphological productivity. The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004244658
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004244658 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldschneider, J. & R. DeKeyser
    2001 Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning51. 1–50. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00147
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldsmith, J. A.
    1990Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenberg, J.
    1966Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haspelmath, M.
    2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42(1). 25–70. 10.1017/S0022226705003683
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003683 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics. 19(1). 1–33. 10.1515/COG.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, John A.
    2004Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Healey, A. , J. Holland , D. McDougall & I. McDougall
    (eds.) 2009The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoekstra, E. & A. P. Versloot
    2019 Factors promoting the retention of irregularity: On the interplay of salience, absolute frequency and proportional frequency in West Frisian plural morphology. Morphology29. 31–50. 10.1007/s11525‑018‑9334‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-018-9334-2 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hogg, R. M.
    1992A grammar of Old English. Volume I: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hogg, R. M. & R. D. Fulk
    2011A grammar of Old English. Volume II: Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hosmer, D. W. & S. Lemeshow
    1989Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Köpcke, K.-M.
    1993Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kürschner, S.
    2008Deklinationsklassen-Wandel eine diachron-kontrastive Studie zur Entwicklung der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, R. W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Nooteboom, S. G. & A. Cohen
    1995Spreken en verstaan. Een nieuwe inleiding tot de experimentele fonetiek. Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Versloot, A. P. & E. Adamczyk
    2018 Plural inflection in North Sea Germanic languages: A multivariate analysis of morphological variation. In A. Dammel , M. Eitelmann & M. Schmuck (eds.), Reorganising grammatical variation. Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants, 17–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.203.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.203.02ver [Google Scholar]
  38. Wurzel, W. U.
    1989Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zipf, G. K.
    1936The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00047.ada
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/nowele.00047.ada
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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