Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 111–124
Edited by Bert Le Bruyn and Janine Berns
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 35] 2018
► pp. 111–124
The Dutch verb-spelling paradox in social media
A corpus study
Although the Dutch verb spelling system seems very straightforward, many spelling errors are made, both by children and adults (e.g., Sandra, Frisson, & Daems 2004). These errors mainly occur with verbs with two or more homophonous forms in their inflectional paradigms. Ample experimental research has been carried out on this topic, but these studies hardly reflect everyday language behavior. In the current corpus study, we reassessed previously found experimental results, but now in a Twitter corpus containing 17,432 tweets with homophonous verb forms. In accordance with previous results, we found a clear preference for the suffix -<d>
compared to both -<dt>
and -<t>
, as well as a frequency effect, resulting in fewer errors for more frequent word forms. Furthermore, the results revealed that users with more followers make fewer errors, and that more errors are made during the evening and night.
Keywords: verb spelling errors, homophones, frequency effect, mental lexicon, everyday language behavior
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Method
- 2.1The corpus
- 2.2Analysis
- 3.Results
- 3.1Homophone pair 1 (first vs. third person singular)
- 3.2Homophone pair 2 (third person singular vs. past participle)
- 3.3 Worden
- 3.4 Vinden
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References (22)
Assink, Egbert M. H. 1985. “Assessing spelling strategies for the orthography of Dutch verbs.” British Journal of Psychology 76 (3): 353–363. 
Baayen, R. Harald, Ton Dijkstra & Robert Schreuder. 1997. “Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model.” Journal of Memory and Language 37 (1): 94–117.
Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock & Hedderick van Rijn. 1995. “The CELEX database.” Nijmegen: Center for Lexical Information, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, CD-ROM.
Bosman, Anna M. T. 2005. “Development of rule-based verb spelling in Dutch students.” Written Language & Literacy 8 (1): 1–18.
Ernestus, Mirjam & Willem M. Mak. 2005. “Analogical effects in reading Dutch verb forms.” Memory & Cognition 33 (7): 1160–1173.
Fayol, Michel, Pierre Largy & Patrick Lemaire. 1994. “Cognitive overload and orthographic errors: When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in French written language.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 47 (2): 437–464.
Folkard, Simon. 1975. “Diurnal variation in logical reasoning.” British Journal of Psychology 66 (1): 1–8.
Frisson, Steven, & Dominiek Sandra. 2002. “Homophonic forms of regularly inflected verbs have their own orthographic representations: A developmental perspective on spelling errors.” Brain and Language 81 (1–3): 545–554.
Hanssen, Esther, Robert Schreuder & Anneke Neijt. 2015. “From t-bias to d-bias in Dutch: Evidence from children’s spelling and pronunciation.” Written Language & Literacy 18 (1): 104–120.
Hutto, C. J., Sarita Yardi, & Eric Gilbert. 2013. A longitudinal study of follow predictors on twitter. Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems, 821–830). ACM. ([URL]).
Largy, Pierre, & Michel Fayol. 1996. “The homophone effect in written French: The case of verb-noun inflection errors.” Language and Cognitive Processes 11 (3): 217–256.
Laudanna, Alessandro & Cristina Burani. 1985. “Address mechanisms to decomposed lexical entries.” Linguistics 23 (5): 775–792.
Neijt, Anneke & Robert Schreuder. 2007. “Asymmetrical phoneme-grapheme mapping of coronal plosives in Dutch.” Written Language & Literacy 10 (2): 219–234.
Sandra, Dominiek. 2010. “Homophone dominance at the whole-word and sub-word levels: Spelling errors suggest full-form storage of regularly inflected verb forms.” Language and Speech 53 (3): 405–444.
Sandra, Dominiek, & Michel Fayol. 2003. “Spelling errors with a view on the mental lexicon: Frequency and proximity effects in misspelling homophonous regular verb forms in Dutch and French.” Morphological structure in language processing ed. by R. H. Baayen and R. Schreuder, 485–514. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sandra, Dominiek, Steven Frisson & Frans Daems. 1999. “Why simple verb forms can be so difficult to spell: The influence of homophone frequency and distance in Dutch.” Brain and Language 68 (1–2): 277–283.
. 2004. “Still errors after all those years…: Limited attentional resources and homophone frequency account for spelling errors on silent verb suffixes in Dutch.” Written Language & Literacy 7 (1): 61–77.
Sandra, Dominiek, & Lien van Abbenyen. 2009. “Frequency and analogical effects in the spelling of full-form and sublexical homophonous patterns by 12 year-old children.” The Mental Lexicon 4 (2): 239–275.
Tjong Kim Sang, Erik & Antal van den Bosch. 2013. “Dealing with big data: The case of Twitter.” Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 31: 121–134.
van der Veer, Neil, Steven Boekee & Oscar Peters. 2017. “Nationale Social Media Onderzoek 2017 [National Social Media Research 2017].” Accessed 27 March 2018. [URL].
Verhaert, Nina. 2016. “Rules Or Regularities? The Homophone Dominance Effect in Spelling and Reading Regular Dutch Verb Forms.” PhD diss., Universiteit Antwerpen.
Verhaert, Nina, Ellen Danckaert & Dominiek Sandra. 2016. “The dual role of homophone dominance. Why homophone intrusions on regular verb forms so often go unnoticed.” The Mental Lexicon 11 (1): 1–25.
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Berg, Kristian, Stefan Hartmann & Daniel Claeser
2024. Are some morphological units more prone to spelling variation than others? A case study using spontaneous handwritten data. Morphology 34:2 ► pp. 173 ff. 
Sandra, Dominiek, Dorit Ravid & Ingo Plag
2024. The orthographic representation of a word’s morphological structure: beneficial and detrimental effect for spellers. Morphology 34:2 ► pp. 103 ff.
van den Boer, Madelon & Elise H. de Bree
2024. To Show or Tell: Improving the Spelling of Rule-Based Words with Explicit or Implicit Practice. Scientific Studies of Reading 28:3 ► pp. 303 ff.
Gahl, Susanne & Ingo Plag
2022. Spelling errors in English derivational suffixes reflect morphological boundary strength. The Mental Lexicon ► pp. 1 ff.
Sandra, Dominiek
2022. Too Little Morphology Can Kill You: The Interplay Between Low-Frequency Morpho-Orthographic Rules and High-Frequency Verb Homophones in Spelling Errors. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 191 ff.
Surkyn, Hanne, Dominiek Sandra & Reinhild Vandekerckhove
2022. Adolescents and Verb Spelling: The Impact of Gender and Educational Track on Rule Knowledge and Linguistic Attitudes. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 11
Chamalaun, Robert J. P. M., Anna M. T. Bosman & Mirjam T. C. Ernestus
2021. The role of grammar in spelling homophonous regular verbs. Written Language & Literacy 24:1 ► pp. 38 ff.
de Bree, Elise & Madelon van den Boer
2021. Wrong place, wrong time: Children’s sensitivity to present tense spelling conventions. Applied Psycholinguistics 42:5 ► pp. 1221 ff.
Surkyn, Hanne, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Dominiek Sandra
Surkyn, Hanne, Reinhild Vandekerckhove & Dominiek Sandra
2021. The impact of analogical effects and social factors on the spelling of partially homophonous verb forms in informal social media writing. Written Language & Literacy 24:1 ► pp. 1 ff.
Rey, Arnaud, Jean-Luc Manguin, Chloé Olivier, Sébastien Pacton, Pierre Courrieu & Francesca Peressotti
2019. Spelling performance on the web and in the lab. PLOS ONE 14:12 ► pp. e0226647 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.