Cover not available
Article published In:
Early history of the North Sea Germanic languages
Edited by Stephen Laker and Hans Frede Nielsen †
[NOWELE 74:1] 2021
► pp. 4–26

A multifactorial account of analogical developments in Old English nominal paradigms

| Bergische Universität Wuppertal
The present paper focuses on the interaction of factors that conditioned analogical developments in Old English nominal paradigms. They include especially the absolute and relative frequency of occurrence, the salience of inflectional exponents, the formal inflectional overlap across paradigms, functional factors, semantics and syllable structure (stem weight). They could work in two opposite directions, namely towards retaining the etymological inflections or they could facilitate the adoption of analogical endings. The significance of individual factors for the reorganisation of nominal paradigms is investigated by employing a statistical analysis (multivariate logistic regression) which allows us to rank them. The analysis demonstrates that the attested inflectional patterns can largely be explained by an interaction of three factors, namely salience and frequency, which can be linked to the cognitive aspects of storage and retrieval of linguistic information, and the overlap of inflectional forms across paradigms, which is a manifestation of analogical pressure in the paradigms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Restructuring of nominal paradigms in Old English: Patterns
  • 3.Conditioning factors
    • 3.1Frequency of occurrence/use
    • 3.2Salience of inflectional exponents
    • 3.3Functional factors (Sg-Pl)
    • 3.4Formal overlap of productive and unproductive paradigms (percentage of neutral forms, % neutr 0–1)
    • 3.5Prosodic structure: Stem weight
    • 3.6Semantics
  • 4.Statistical analysis of conditioning factors
    • 4.1Method
    • 4.2Results of the analysis and discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 April 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00047.ada
References (39)
References
2019. The dynamics of changes in the early English inflection: Evidence from the Old English nominal system. In C. Claridge & B. Bös (eds.), Historical syntax: Papers from the 19th Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL), Duisburg-Essen 22–26 August 2016, 9–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Adamczyk, E. & A. Versloot. 2019. Phonological constraints on morphology: Evidence from Old English nominal inflection. Folia Linguistica 40(1). 153–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, C. L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2004. Inflection classes and economy. In G. Müller, L. Gunkel & G. Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boutkan, D. 1995. The Germanic ‘Auslautgesetze’. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5). 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Frequency of use and the organisation of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. 1977. Old English grammar (reprint of the first edition 1959). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Corbett, G., A. Hippisley, D. Brown & P. Marriott. 2001. Frequency, regularity and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 201–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, A. & S. Kürschner. 2008. Complexity in nominal plural allomorphy: A contrastive survey of ten Germanic languages. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 243–262. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, A., S. Kürschner & D. Nübling. 2010. Pluralallomorphie in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Konvergenzen und Divergenzen in Ausdrucksverfahren und Konditionierung. In A. Dammel, S. Kürschner & D. Nübling (eds.), Kontrastive germanistische Linguistik, 587–642. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. 2003. The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner Law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(4). 145–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25 (2). 104–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2002. Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 241. 297–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & L. Collins. 2009. Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 931. 329–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, F. 2013. Dynamics of morphological productivity. The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldschneider, J. & R. DeKeyser. 2001. Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning 511. 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1966. Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics. 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, A., J. Holland, D. McDougall & I. McDougall (eds.) 2009. The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. & A. P. Versloot. 2019. Factors promoting the retention of irregularity: On the interplay of salience, absolute frequency and proportional frequency in West Frisian plural morphology. Morphology 291. 31–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. 1992. A grammar of Old English. Volume I: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. M. & R. D. Fulk. 2011. A grammar of Old English. Volume II: Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. & S. Lemeshow. 1989. Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M. 1993. Schemata bei der Pluralbildung im Deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kürschner, S. 2008. Deklinationsklassen-Wandel eine diachron-kontrastive Studie zur Entwicklung der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. & A. Cohen. 1995. Spreken en verstaan. Een nieuwe inleiding tot de experimentele fonetiek. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Versloot, A. P. & E. Adamczyk. 2018. Plural inflection in North Sea Germanic languages: A multivariate analysis of morphological variation. In A. Dammel, M. Eitelmann & M. Schmuck (eds.), Reorganising grammatical variation. Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants, 17–55. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1936. The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar