Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:2 (2019) ► pp.139–180

Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection

| University of Leuven | Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
| University of Leuven
This article takes a quantitative approach to the long-term dynamics of the preterite inflection in West Germanic, with a special focus on Dutch. In a first step, we replicate two often-cited studies on English and German (Lieberman et al. 2007 and Carroll et al. 2012, respectively) by looking at Dutch. This part also tackles some methodological shortcomings in the previous studies. In a second step, we delve deeper into the evolution of the preterite morphology in Dutch in the last 1200 years, by looking at several factors which have been previously only investigated in isolation or on limited time slices. Using multiple binomial regression analysis, the various factors are studied under multifactorial control.
Keywords: Dutch, strong verbs, weak verbs, preterites, binomial regression, West Germanic, rate of change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.‘Regular-irregular’ vs. ‘weak-strong’
  • 3.Etymological intricacies
  • 4.Quantifying the weakening
    • 4.1Methods
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Comparison with English and German
  • 5.A multifactorial approach
    • 5.1More than token frequency
    • 5.2Method
    • 5.3Results
    • 5.4Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18020.des
References (103)
References
Aitchison, Jean. 2013. Language change: Progress or decay? 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2012. Variable past tense forms in 19th-century American English: Linking normative grammars and language change. American Speech 871. 257–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin. 2005. Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language 811. 666–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Christopher Gordon. 1997. The etymology of the Old High German weak verb. Newcastle upon Tyne: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2013. History of the English language. 6th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay & Andrew Wedel. 2009. The roles of acquisition and usage in morphological change. Berkeley Linguistics Society 35(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentz, Christian & Bodo Winter. 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change 31. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergsland, Knut & Hans Vogt. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 31. 115–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 411. 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Kevin Diependaele. 2013. Dealing with zero word frequencies: A review of the existing rules of thumb and suggestion for an evidence-based choice. Behavior Research Methods 451. 422–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 821. 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Ryan, Ragnar Svare & Joseph Salmons. 2012. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of German verbs. Journal of Historical Linguistics 21. 153–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuskley, Christine, Martina Pugliese, Claudio Castellano, Francesca Colaiori, Vittorio Loreto & Francesca Tria. 2014. Internal and external dynamics in language: Evidence from verb regularity in a historical corpus of English. PLoS ONE 9(8). e102882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalgaard, Peter. 2008. Introductory statistics with R. 2nd edn. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje, Jessica Nowak & Mirjam Schmuck. 2010. Strong-verb paradigm leveling in four Germanic languages: A category frequency approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 221. 337–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard & Klaar Vanopstal. 2015. Patterns of regularisation in British, American and Indian English: A closer look at irregular verbs with t/ed variation. In Collins, P. (ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide, 335–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Grauwe, Luc. 1982. De Wachtendonckse psalmen en glossen: Een lexikologisch woordgeografische studie met proeve van kritische leestekst en glossaria, Deel 2. Nederland: Secretariaat van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
De Smet, Isabeau, Katrien Beuls, Dirk Pijpops & Freek Van de Velde. 2017. Language-specific differences in regularization rates of the Germanic preterite. Paper presented at the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL). San Antonio, July 31-August 4.
De Vriendt, Sera F. L. 1965. Sterke werkwoorden en sterke werkwoordsvormen in de 16de eeuw. Brussel: Belgisch interuniversitair centrum voor neerlandistiek.Google Scholar
De Vries, Matthias & Lammert te Winkel. 1851–1998. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal. ([URL])
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 251. 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dieter, Ferdinand. 1900. Laut- und Formenlehre der Altgermanischen Dialekte. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2010. How do words change inflection class? Diachronic evidence from Norwegian. Language Sciences 321. 366–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2009. Are strong verbs really dying to fit in? Paper presented at GLAC 15, Banff, May 2.
. 2016. Spreading like wildfire: Morphological variation and the dynamics of the Great English Verb Regularization. Paper presented at St. Petersburg State University, January 21.
. Manuscript. The regularisation-through-derivation effect and the historical development of verbs in the West Germanic languages.
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franck, Johannes. 1883. Mittelniederländische Grammatik: Mit Lesestücken und Glossar. Leipzig: T. O. Weigel.Google Scholar
. 1971. Altfränkische Grammatik. 2nd edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne. 2008. “Time” and “thyme” are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 841. 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1819. Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Gysseling, Maurits. 1977–1987. Corpus Gysseling. [URL]
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr. (with contributions from Charles Dupont and many others) 2015. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 3.17–1. [URL]
Hoekstra, Eric, Anne Merkuur, Marjoleine Sloos & Jeroen van de Weijer. 2018. Calculating a pattern’s competitive strength: Competition between /æ/ and /ʌ/ in irregular simple pasts and past participles in English. The Mental Lexicon 13(1). 143–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holthausen, Ferdinand. 1921. Altsächsisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Horst, Johannes van der. 2010. Met (het) oog op morgen: Opstellen over taal, taalverandering en standaardtaal. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buehlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro & Mark Van Der Laan. 2006. Survival ensembles. Biostatistics 7(3). 355–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, Matthias, Ulrike Vogel, Ton van der Wouden & Arie Verhagen (eds.). 2006. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, Jörg D. & Willem J. M. Levelt. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20(4). 824–843.Google Scholar
Koelmans, L. 1978. Inleiding tot het lezen van zeventiende-eeuwse teksten. Utrecht: Instituut De Vooys voor Nederlandse Taal- en letterkunde.Google Scholar
Knooihuizen, Remco & Oscar Strik. 2014. Relative productivity potentials of Dutch verbal inflection patterns. Folia Linguistica Historica 351. 173–200.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 261. 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Phonology and morphology. In Hogg, Richard & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 43–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd edn. München: Lincom.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 4491. 713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mailhammer, Robert. 2007. The Germanic strong verbs: Foundations and development of a new system. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, Wayne. 1978. The evolution of the Germanic inflectional systems: A study in the causes of language change. Orbis 271. 248–286.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Wim Goedertier, Frank Van Eynde, Louis Boves, Jean-Pierre Martens, Michael Moortgat & Harald Baayen. 2002. Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project.Google Scholar
Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus Johannes Juliana, K. H. van Dalen-Oskam, Katrien Depuydt & T. H. Schoonheim, H. T. Aalbrecht, P. Burger, M. C. van Dalen, G. H. Dambrink, M. J.M van Diepen & K. Stooker (eds.). 2000. Vroegmiddelnederlands woordenboek. ([URL])
Pijnenburg, Wilhelmus Johannes Juliana, Arend Quak, T. H. Schoonheim, M. A. Mooijaart & K. Louwen (eds.). 2012. Oudnederlands woordenboek. ([URL])
Pijpops, Dirk, Katrien Beuls & Freek Van de Velde. 2015. The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic: An agent based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 51. 81–102.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2016. Constructional contamination: how does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2). 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Four case studies. Constructions and Frames 10(2). 269–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1998. Words and rules. Lingua 1061. 219–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 2009 [1939]. A comparative Germanic grammar. Surrey: Tiger Xenophon.Google Scholar
Quak, Arend. 1981. Die altmittel- und altniederfränkischen Psalmen und Glossen. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Quak, Arend & Johannes van der Horst. 2002. Inleiding Oudnederlands. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. [URL]
Ruigendijk, Esther, Freek Van de Velde & Roel Vismans (eds.). 2012. Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 981. 1–176.Google Scholar
Sanders, Willy. 1974. Der Leidener Willeram. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Santen, Ariane van. 1997. Hoe sterk zijn de sterke werkwoorden? In Ariane van Santen & Marijke van der Wal (eds.), Taal in tijd en ruimte: Voor Cor van Bree bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar Historische Taalkunde en Taalvariatie aan de Vakgroep Nederlands van de Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, 45–56. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Scott, Alan (ed.). 2016. New directions in comparative Germanic linguistics. Special issue of the Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28(4).Google Scholar
Sijs, Nicoline van der. 2010. Etymologiebank. ([URL])
Simpson, John & Edmund Weiner (eds.). 1989. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smessaert, Hans, Johannes van der Horst & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2017. A Germanic Sandwich 2013. Special issue of Leuvense Bijdragen – Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 1011.Google Scholar
Speelman, Dirk. 2014. Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 487–533. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strik, Oscar. 2015. Modelling analogical change: A history of Swedish and Frisian verb inflection. Groningen: PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis & Torsten Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(25). [URL]. DOI logo
Strobl, Caroline, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin & Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(307). [URL]. DOI logo
Tack, P. 1897. Oudnederfrankische grammatica. Gent: A. Siffer.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Harald, Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ten Kate, Lambert Hz. 2001 [1723]. Aenleiding tot de kennisse van het verhevene deel der Nederduitsche sprake: Eerste deel. Eds. Jan Noordegraaf en Marijke van der Wal. Alphen aan den Rijn: Uitgeverij Canaletto/Repro-Holland BV.) ([URL])
Tops, Guy A. J. 1974. The origin of the Germanic dental preterit. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Van Bree, Cor. 1987. Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Van Coetsem, Frans. 1990. Ablaut and reduplication in the Germanic verb. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Van de Ketterij, Cornelis. 1980. Grammaticale interpretatie van Middelnederlandse teksten: Instructiegrammatica. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Van den Toorn, Maarten C., Wilhelmus Pijnenburg, Arjan van Leuvensteijn & Johannes van der Horst. 1997. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Britta Kestemont. 2015. Using mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the determinants of regularisation of strong inflection in Dutch. Paper presented at SLE 48 Workshop. Shifting classes: Germanic strong and weak preterites and participles, Leiden, September 3.
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 371. 473–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Dirk Pijpops. 2018. Grensoverschrijdend syntactisch gedrag. In Timothy Colleman, Johan De Caluwe, Veronique De Tier, Anne-Sophie Ghyselen, Liesbet Triest, Roxane Vandenberghe & Ulrike Vogl (eds.), Woorden om te bewaren. Huldeboek voor Jacques Van Keymeulen, 433–449. Gent: UGent, Vakgroep Taalkunde, Afdeling Nederlands.Google Scholar
Van Haeringen, Coenraad B. 1940. De taaie levenskracht van het sterke werkwoord. De Nieuwe Taalgids 311. 241–255.Google Scholar
1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Van Helten, Willem Lodewijk. 1973 [1887]. Middelnederlandsche spraakkunst. Walluf: Sändig.Google Scholar
Van Loey, Adolphe. 1973. Middelnederlandse spraakkunst: I Vormleer. Kapellen: De Sikkel.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. & Brian D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verwijs, Eelco, Jakob Verdam, Frederik Stoett, Willem De Vreese, G. I. Lieftinck & Anton Beekman. 1885–1941. Middelnederlandsch woordenboek. (http://gtb.ivdnt.org)Google Scholar
Vismans, Roel, Matthias Hüning & Fred Weerman (eds.). 2010. Special issue: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22(4).Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik. 2012. Geolinguistic data and the past tense debate: Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects of Dutch verb regularization. In Gunther De Vogelaer & Guido Seiler (eds.), The dialect laboratory: Dialects as a testing ground for theories of language change, 227–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wal, Marijke van der & Cor Van Bree. 2008. Geschiedenis van het Nederlands. Houten: Spectrum.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 2006. ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ Een vergelijkende blik op ‘men’ en ‘man’. In Matthias Hüning, Ulrike Vogl, Ton Van der Wouden, & Arie Verhagen (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels, 19–47. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred, Mike Olson & Robert A. Cloutier. 2013. Synchronic variation and loss of case: Formal and informal language in a Dutch corpus of 17th-century Amsterdam texts. Diachronica 30(3). 353–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius A. 1958. Nederlandse dialectkunde. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2017. stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.2.0. [URL]
Wickham, Hadley & François Romain. 2015. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. [URL]
Wickham, Hadley. 2011. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 40(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Reshaping data with the reshape Package. Journal of Statistical Software 21(12). 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles D. 2002. Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Chatten, Alicia, Kimberley Baxter, Erwanne Mas, Jailyn Peña, Guy Tabachnick, Daniel Duncan & Laurel MacKenzie
2024. “I’ve Always Spoke Like This, You See”: Preterite-to-Participle Leveling in American and British Englishes. American Speech: A Quarterly of Linguistic Usage 99:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Nijs, Julie, Freek Van de Velde & Hubert Cuyckens
2024. An Information-Theoretic Approach to Morphosyntactic Complexity in English, Dutch and German. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Serbicki, Sofia, Ruijin Lan & Daniel Duncan
2024. Participle-for-preterite variation in Tyneside English. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 45:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau, Laura Rosseel & Freek Van de Velde
2022. Are non-native speakers the drivers of morphological simplification? A Wug experiment on the Dutch past tense system. Journal of Language Evolution 7:2 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Van de Velde, Freek & Isabeau De Smet
2022. Markov Models for Multi-state Language Change. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 29:3 ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Laura Rosseel
2021. An experimental approach to iconicity in Dutch strong and weak verb morphology. Language Sciences 85 ► pp. 101361 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Laura Rosseel
2024. Who’s afraid of homophones? A multimethodological approach to homophony avoidance. Language and Cognition 16:3 ► pp. 600 ff. DOI logo
Colaiori, Francesca & Francesca Tria
2020. A complex system approach to language evolution. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:2 ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 393 ff. DOI logo
De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2020. A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch. Language Variation and Change 32:2 ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk
2020. What is an alternation?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 283 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet & Freek Van de Velde
2018. Constructional contamination in morphology and syntax. Constructions and Frames 10:2 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 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.