Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:47:37.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: a multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2010

STEFAN TH. GRIES  and
MARTIN HILPERT
STEFAN TH. GRIES
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106–3100, USAstgries@linguistics.ucsb.edu
MARTIN HILPERT
Affiliation:
Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), School of Language and Literature, Albertstr. 19, 79104 Freiburg, Germanymhilpert@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study addresses the development of the English third-person singular present tense suffix from an interdental fricative (giveth) to an alveolar fricative (gives). Based on the PCEEC corpus, we analyze more than 20,000 examples from the time between 1417 and 1681 to determine (i) the temporal stages in which this development took place and (ii) the factors that are correlated with this change.

As for (i), we use a bottom-up clustering method which shows that the shift from -(e)th to -(e)s is best characterized as consisting of five stages. As for (ii), we examine multiple language-internal and language-external factors, including several variables proposed in earlier accounts. We fit a generalized linear mixed-effects model, which allows us to predict nearly 95 per cent of all inflectional choices correctly, thus revealing which factors shaped the development over time in a data-driven and highly precise way.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 293 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Paul. To appear. Times may change, but we will always have money: Diachronic variation in recent British English. Journal of English Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas & Maechler, Martin. 2009. Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (lme4 version 0.999375-31). http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Beal, J., Corrigan, K. & Moisl, H. (eds.) 2007. Creating and digitizing language corpora: Diachronic databases. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Bellman, Richard. 1961. On the approximation of curves by line segments using dynamic programming. Communications of the ACM 4 (6), 284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berdan, Robert. 1996. Disentangling language acquisition from language variation. In Bayley, R. & Preston, D. (eds.), Second language acquisition and language variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 203–44.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Burges, Jená. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, Ella, Gionis, Aristides, Haiminen, Niina, Hiisilä, Heli, Mannila, Heikki & Terzi, Evimaria. 2006. Segmentation and dimensionality reduction. Proceedings of the Seventh SIAM Conference on Data Mining, 372–83.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14, 261–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82 (4), 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12 (4), 335–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Hill, Rebecca. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34 (4), 365–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, Stefan Th. & Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3 (1), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stoll, Sabine. 2009. Finding developmental groups in acquisition data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 16 (3), 217–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009a. From /θ/ to /s/ in 3SG-PRS: A multifactorial, verb-, and author-specific exploratory approach. Paper presented at MMECL, University of Innsbruck, 8 July 2009.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009b. Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 34 (4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himberg, Johan, Korpiaho, Kalle, Mannila, Heikki, Tikanmäki, Johanna & Toivonen, Hannu T. T.. 2001. Time series segmentation for context recognition in mobile devices. First IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'01), pp. 203–12.Google Scholar
Hinneburg, Alexander, Mannila, Heikki, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2007. How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22 (2), 137–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmqvist, Erik. 1922. On the history of the English present inflections: Particularly -th and -s. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. 2009. Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (1), 359–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1993. Third-person singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5 (2), 113–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts. 3rd edition. Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1991. Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenveränderungen in der Geschichte des Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Gender differences in the evolution of standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1), 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2000a. The third-person singular -(e)S and -(e)TH revisited: The morphophonemic hypothesis. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Ritt, Nikolaus (eds.), Words: Structure, meaning, function: A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 235–48.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2000b. The changing role of London on the linguistic map of Tudor and Stuart England. In Kastovsky, Dieter & Mettinger, Arthur (eds.), The history of English in a social context: A contribution to historical sociolinguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. Longman Linguistics Library. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko & Wang, William S.-Y.. 1996. Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: The development of -s in the third person singular present indicative in English. In Britton, Derek (ed.), English Historical Linguistics 1994. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence PCEEC tagged version. 2006. Annotated by Ann Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Terttu Nevalainen. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. York: University of York and Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive. www-users.york.ac.uk/~lang22/PCEEC-manual/corpus_description/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Branigan, Holly P.. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39 (4), 633–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 205–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1987. At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics: Notes on the replacement of th by s in the third person singular in English. English Studies 68 (5), 406–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2002. An introduction to American English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar