Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:39:28.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A diachronic frequency account of the allomorphy of some grammatical markers1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2010

THOMAS BERG
THOMAS BERG*
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Hamburg
*
Author's address: Department of English, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, 20146Hamburg, Germanythomas_berg@uni-hamburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Allomorphy is a reaction of the morphological system to problems that the unrestrained application of inflectional and other rules creates at the phonological level. These problems are dealt with in some cases but left unattended in others. A diachronic analysis of English reveals that phonemically conditioned allomorphy originates from gradual sound change, with the old and the new variant forming a morphophonological paradigm. The historical stability as well as the synchronic motivation of allomorphy are claimed to be frequency-based. The higher the frequency, the longer the life expectancy. Synchronically, there is a (language- and domain-specific) frequency threshold above which morphophonological variation occurs and below which it fails to occur. The underlying logic of the model is that frequency encourages lexicalization at all linguistic levels. The relative ease with which high-frequency items are accessed enhances the tolerance towards formal variation, hence the emergence of natural phonological rules. As the application of these rules is context-dependent, allomorphy arises as a context-sensitive process. Repair strategies are also argued to be under the sway of frequency. Epenthesis is found in highly frequent structures while coalescence is reserved for less frequent ones. Frequency also determines the scope and the optionality of morphophonological rules. Phonemically governed allomorphy is shown to be a member of the larger family of variationist phenomena which are bound together by their sensitivity to frequency.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 31 - 64
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.)

Footnotes

[1]

A shortened version of this article was presented in the spring of 2009 at the Linguistic Colloquium of the University of Mainz, Germany, at which I benefited from Britta Mondorf's input. I owe a note of gratitude to Marion Neubauer and Christian Koops for performing the English frequency counts as well as to Arne Lohmann for showing me how to do it. I also thank Katerina Stathi, Florian Dolberg, Günter Radden and Craig Davis for their encouraging feedback on an earlier version as well as Nigel Isle for his allomorphic explorations in Nova Scotia. Luckily, I found in Marta Degani a helpful native speaker who provided me with highly welcome information on Italian. Above all, the two anonymous JL referees are to be credited not only for their truly excellent reviews but also for saving me from publicizing one of the most embarrassing scholarly blunders I have ever made.

References

REFERENCES

Allerton, David J. 2000. Articulatory inertia vs. ‘Systemzwang’: Changes in liaison phenomena in recent British English. English Studies 81, 574–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1995. Word-final devoicing in the history of English: A case of unnatural phonology? English Studies 76, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2009. Structure in language: A dynamic perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berko, Jean. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudelaa, Sami & Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2004. Allomorphic variation in Arabic: Implications for lexical processing and representation. Brain and Language 90, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan. 1991. Natural morphology: The organization of paradigms and language acquisition. In Huebner, Thom & Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories, 67–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Frequency effects on French liaison. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't. Linguistics 37, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73, 493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, Jean-Pierre, Dugua, Celine & Fayol, Michel. 2009. Liaison acquisition, word segmentation and construction in French: A usage-based account. Journal of Child Language 36, 357–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 2007. Were they ‘dropping their aitches’? A quantitative study of h-loss in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 11, 51–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisma, Paola. 2009. Word-initial h- in Middle and Early Modern English. In Minkova, (ed.), 130–167.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1935. A grammar of the English language, vol. I: Parts of speech, accidence. Boston, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas & Mehler, Jacques. 1992. Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition 43, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dell, Gary S. 1990. Effects of frequency and vocabulary type on phonological speech errors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5, 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denes, Peter B. 1963. On the statistics of spoken English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 892–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2007. Clitics in English. English Studies 88, 574–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. On the predictiveness of natural morphology. Journal of Linguistics 21, 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. Morphonology: The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987a. Word formation (WF) as part of natural morphology. In Dressler, (ed.), 99–126.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. (ed.). 1987b. Leitmotifs in natural morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84, 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, François. 1980. Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics 28, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Hansen, Sandra, Wolfer, Sascha & Konieczny, Lars. 2009. Fachkommunikation, Popularisierung, Übersetzung: Empirische Vergleiche am Beispiel der Nominalphrase im Englischen und Deutschen. Linguistik Online 39, 8 pp. www.linguistik-online.com (accessed 1 February 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte. 2003. Syntactic and semantic adnominal genitive. In Maienborn, Claudia (ed.), (A)symmetries, 171–201. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18, 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1997. Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howes, D. 1957. On the relation between the intelligibility and frequency of occurrence of English words. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29, 296–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jescheniak, Jörg D. & Levelt, Willem J. M.. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20, 824–843.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Hofland, Knut. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar: Based on the LOB corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, Richard. 1974. Handbook of Middle English grammar: Phonology. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Juilland, Alphonse & Chang-Rodriguez, Eugenio. 1964. Frequency dictionary of Spanish words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juilland, Alphonse & Traversa, Vincenzo. 1973. Frequency dictionary of Italian words. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettemann, Bernhard. 1988. Die Phonologie morphologischer Prozesse im amerikanischen Englisch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 2001. ‘It's a interesting book’. On the use of the indefinite article a before a vowel in English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102, 307–315.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency. Journal of English Linguistics 26, 286–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In Rohdenburg, & Mondorf, (eds.), 7–67.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1982. Allomorphy. Linguistic Analysis 10, 27–52.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The organization of perception and action. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. The acquisition of morphophonology (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43). Chicago, IL: Society for Research in Child Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin & Robustelli, Cecilia. 2000. A reference grammar of Modern Italian. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1980. Frequenz und Sprachwandel. In Lüdtke, Helmut (ed.), Kommunikationstheoretische Grundlagen des Sprachwandels, 37–79. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. System-independent morphological naturalness. In Dressler, (ed.), 25–58.Google Scholar
Menn, Lise & MacWhinney, Brian. 1984. The repeated morph constraint: Toward an explanation. Language 60, 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka (ed.). 2009. Phonological weakness in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 1978. Morphonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ogulnick, Karen A. 1983. Allomorphy in linguistic theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. & Wingfield, A.. 1965. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 17, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and ‘horror aequi’ as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Rohdenburg, & Mondorf, (eds.), 205–249.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.). 2003. Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia. 2000. Determinanten grammatischer Variation im Früh- und Spätneuenglischen. Sprachwissenschaft 25, 443–496.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 1996. Parallel antitheses in phonology and morphology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49, 249–263.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81, 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 61–86.Google Scholar
Schendl, Herbert. 1997. Morphological variation and change in Early Modern English: My/mine, thy/thine. In Hickey, Raymond & Puppel, Stanislav (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling, vol. I: Language history, 179–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2003. Phonological determinants of grammatical variation in English: Chomsky's worst possible case. In Rohdenburg, & Mondorf, (eds.), 69–118.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. Weak segments and syllable structure in Middle English. In Minkova, (ed.), 199–236.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul. 1983. Inflectional malapropisms: Form-based errors in English morphology. Linguistics 21, 573–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986a. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory & Cognition 14, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stemberger, Joseph Paul & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986b. Form-oriented inflectional errors in language processing. Cognitive Psychology 18, 329–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szpyra, Jolanta. 1989. The phonology–morphology interface. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Rule inversion. Lingua 29, 209–242.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. The role of extractions and ‘horror aequi’ in the evolution of -ing complements in Modern English. In Rohdenburg, & Mondorf, (eds.), 305–327.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Max W. 1993. On the hierarchy of naturalness principles in inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1975. Settling on an underlying form: The English inflectional endings. In Cohen, David & Wirth, Jessica R. (eds.), Testing linguistic hypotheses, 129–185. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar