Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 261–276

Word-specific phonology

The impact of token frequency and base transparency

Three factors play an important role in predicting the output of word formation processes and the direction of pattern extension: type frequency, token frequency, and base transparency. Base transparency, the focus of this chapter, is responsible for the selection of allomorphs that diverge the least from the base. One pattern from Finnish and two patterns from Polish illustrate various degrees of applicability of base transparency to specific words.
Keywords: allomorph selection, base identity, lexical frequency, pattern extension
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.14cza
References (29)
Albright, A. 2002. The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Anttila, A. 2006. Variation and opacity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 893–944. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bańko, M., Komosińska, D., & Stankiewicz, A. (Eds.). 2003. Indeks a tergo do Uniwersalnego słownika języka polskiego pod redakcją Stanisława Dubisza. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Benua, L. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representation. In J. Durand & B. Laks (Eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods (97–122). Paris: European Studies Research Institute, University of Salford Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Czaplicki, B. 2013. Arbitrariness in grammar: Palatalization effects in Polish. Lingua, 123, 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Lexicon based phonology: Arbitrariness in grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dressler, W.U. 2003. Naturalness and morphological change. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (461–471). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frauenfelder, U.H., & Schreuder, R. 1992. Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G.E. Booij & J. Van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (165–183). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R., & Puzynina, J. 1999. Rzeczownik. In R. Grzegorczykowa, R. Laskowski, & H. Wróbel (Eds.), Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego: Morfologia (389–468). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hooper, J.B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (96–105). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. 1996. Base identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In J. Durand & B. Laks (Eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, Vol. 1 (363–394). Salford: University of Salford.Google Scholar
. 2005. Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In L.J. Downing, T.A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (145–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. 2003. The phonology of stress in Polish [LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics 23]. Munich: LINCOM Europa. [Based on the University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation, Urbana-Champaign, 1995.]Google Scholar
. 2007. Analogy: The relation between Lexicon and grammar. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Laalo, K. 1988. Imperfektimuotojen ti~si -vaihtelu suomen kielessä [The Past Tense ti~si Alternation in Finnish]. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura , Helsinki.
Lahiri, A., & Dresher, B.E. 1984. Diachronic and synchronic implications of declension shifts. The Linguistic Review, 3, 141–163.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mańczak, W. 1980. Laws of analogy. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical morphology (283–288). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In L.J. Downing, T.A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in phonological theory (170–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McQueen, J., & Cutler, A. 1998. Morphology in word recognition. In A. Spencer & A.A. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (406–427). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. 2001. Lexical diffusion, lexical frequency, and lexical analysis. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (123–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J.B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, T. Rietvelt, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology VII (101–139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. Broe & J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon (313–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar