Article published in:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 13:1 (2018) ► pp. 143–157
Methodological and analytic considerations

Calculating a pattern’s competitive strength

Competition between /æ/ and /ʌ/ in irregular simple pasts and past participles in English

| Fryske Akademy | Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
| Fryske Akademy | Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
| Fryske Akademy | Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
| Shenzhen University

This article proposes a measure of the competitive strength of two rival patterns in the domain of a subgroup of irregular verbs in English. There is competition between simple pasts built on the vowels /æ/ and /ʌ/, and the same competition is found in the domain of past participles. As a result of such competition, the past tense stang (from sting) was replaced with stung. The /ʌ/ forms are more competitive than the /æ/ forms (Bybee & Slobin 2007, Bybee & Moder 2007). To understand this, we counted the number of types for /æ/ (such as sang, rang) and /ʌ/ (such as stung, stuck) in the irregular simple past and did the same in the irregular participle (such as sat, had and sung, done). We calculated a measure of competitiveness for these two patterns incorporating type frequency and token frequency. This measure was used to explain why /ʌ/ forms are more competitive than /æ/ forms.

Keywords: type frequency, token frequency, log scaling, competition, English irregular verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Competition and change
  • 2.Empirical evidence showing that the /ʌ/ pattern is more competitive than the /æ/ pattern
    • 2.1Historical evidence
    • 2.2Evidence from dialects
    • 2.3Evidence from errors
  • 3.The calculation of competitive strength
    • 3.1Type frequency and token frequency
    • 3.2A formalisation of the relation between type frequency and token frequency
    • 3.3Calculating the competitive strength of the /æ/ pattern and the /ʌ/ pattern
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17019.hoe
References
Anderwald, L.
(2009) The Morphology of English Dialects. Verb Formation in Non-Standard English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M.
(2016) Competition and the lexicon. In A. Elia, C. Iacobini, & M. Voghera (Eds.), Livelli di Analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII congresso internazionale della società di linguistica Italiana (pp. 39–52). Roma: Bulzoni Editore.Google Scholar
Berg, T.
(2014) On the relationship between type and token frequency. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 21, 3, 199–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M. & New, B.
(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 41, 4, 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 101: 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) [Hooper 1976] Word Frequency in Lexical Diffusion and the Source of Morphophonological Change. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency of use and the organization of language (23–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Slobin, D.
(2007) [1982] Rules and schemas in the Development of the English Past Tense. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency of use and the organization of language (pp. 101–126). Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Moder, C.
(2007) [1983] Morphological Classes as Natural Categories. In J. Bybee (Ed.) Frequency of use and the organization of language (pp. 127–147). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehaene, S.
(2003) The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Update Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 4, 145–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2007) Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 2, 104–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisma, D. & Popkema, J.
(2006) Tiidwurden [Verbs]. Ljouwert / Leeuwarden: AFUK.Google Scholar
Gahl, S.
(2008) “Thyme” and “time” are not homophones. The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84, 3, 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grabowski, E. & Mindt, D.
(1995) A corpus-based learning list of irregular verbs in English. International Computer Archive of Modern English (ICAME) 191, 5–22.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M.
(1997) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F.
(1996) Dialect levelling in Limburg. Structural and sociolinguistic aspects. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, J., & Levelt, W.
(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
Jespersen, O.
(1942) A modern English grammar on historical principles. Volume 6: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Krott, A., Baayen, H., & Schreuder, R.
(2001) Analogy in morphology: modeling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Linguistics 39, 1, 51–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McSparran, F., Schaffner, P., Latta, J., Pagliere, A., Powell, C., & Stoeffler, M.
(2006) Middle English Dictionary. University of Michigan. Accessed 16 February 2017. https://​quod​.lib​.umich​.edu​/m​/med/.
Mufwene, S.
(2008) Language Evolution. Contact, Competition and Change. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Phillips, B.
(2006) Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versloot, A. & Hoekstra, E.
(2016) Attraction between words as a function of frequency and representational distance: words in the bilingual brain. Linguistics 54, 6, 1223–1240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, A., A. Kaplan, A., & Jackson, S.
(2013) High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128, 2, 179–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wieling, M., Nerbonne, J., & Baayen, R. H.
(2011) Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLoS ONE 6, 9, e23613. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Wright, R.
(2004) Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. Papers in laboratory phonology VI1, 75–87.Google Scholar
Zipf, G.
(1935) The Psycho-Biology of Language. An introduction to Dynamic Philology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Reprint 1965 Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1949) Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge (Mass.): Addison-Wesley. Reprint 1965 New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

De Smet, Isabeau & Freek Van de Velde
2019. Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection. Diachronica 36:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
van de Weijer, Jeroen, Weiyun Wei, Yumeng Wang, Guangyuan Ren & Yunyun Ran
2020. Words are constructions, too: A construction-based approach to English ablaut reduplication. Linguistics 58:6 ► pp. 1701 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 january 2023. 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.