Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T11:38:00.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimenting on the past: a case study on changing analysability in English ly-adverbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

HENDRIK DE SMET  and
FREEK VAN DE VELDE
HENDRIK DE SMET
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, box 3308, B-3000 Leuven, Belgiumhendrik.desmet@kuleuven.be, freek.vandevelde@kuleuven.be
FREEK VAN DE VELDE
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, box 3308, B-3000 Leuven, Belgiumhendrik.desmet@kuleuven.be, freek.vandevelde@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While it is undoubtedly true that historical data do not lend themselves well to the reproduction of experimental findings, the availability of increasingly extensive data sets has brought some experimenting within practical reach. This means that certain predictions based on a combination of synchronic observations and uniformitarian thinking are now testable. Synchronic evidence shows a negative correlation between analysability in morphologically complex words and various measures of frequency. It is therefore expected that when the frequency of morphologically complex items changes, their analysability will change along with this. If analysability decreases, this should in turn be reflected in decreasing sensitivity to priming by items with analogous composition. The latter prediction is in principle testable on diachronic data, offering a way of verifying the diachronic effect of frequency change on analysability. In this spirit, the present article examines the relation between changing frequency and priming sensitivity, as a proxy to analysability. This is done for a sample of 250 English ly-adverbs, such as roughly, blindly, publicly, etc. over the period 1950–2005, using data from the Hansard Corpus. Some of the expected relations between frequency and analysability can be shown to hold, albeit with great variation across lexical items. At the same time, much of the variation in our measure of analysability cannot be accounted for by frequency or frequency change alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 317 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar, Ðurđević, Dusica Filipović, Hendrix, Peter & Marelli, Marco. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118 (3), 438–81.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven, lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–4, 2013, http://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4 Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The Uniformitarian Principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. In Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel & Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 80–98. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blaxter, Tam. 2015. Gender and language change in Old Norse sentential negatives. Language Variation and Change 27, 349–75.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dormé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1987. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language 26, 119–37.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 602–23.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82, 711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ford, Michael A., Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Davis, Matthew H.. 2003. Morphology and frequency: Contrasting methodologies. In Baayen, R. Harald & Schreuder, Robert (eds.), Morphological structure in language processing, 89–124. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8, 1–27.Google Scholar
Fox, John & Weisberg, Sanford. 2011. An {R} companion to applied regression, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz. 2012. The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English. English Language and Linguistics 16 (3), 341–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonnerman, Laura M., Seidenberg, Mark S. & Andersen, Elaine S.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 323–45.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter & Alegre, Maria. 1999. Is there a dual system for regular inflections? Brain and Language 68, 212–17.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34 (4), 365–99.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan & Noveck, Ira. 2015. What can historical linguistics and experimental pragmatics offer each other? Linguistics Vanguard 1, 145–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank. 2013. rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. R package version 4.0–0. http://cran.r-project.org/package=rms Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive: A universal path of grammaticalization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10, 287–310.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37 (6), 1043–68.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Tecumseh Fitch, W.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–79.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39, 1047–70.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & Harald Baayen, R.. 2005. Shifting paradigms. Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 342–8.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting, observation, and understanding, 117–34. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Joseph, Brian D.. 2003. On language, change, and language change – or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph & Janda (eds.), 3–180.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. 3. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D. (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001a. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001b. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2005. Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17, 183–217.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo & Ricca, Davide. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In van der Auwera, Johan (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 187–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte & Schwenter, Scott. 2017. Entrenchment and persistence in language change: The Spanish past subjunctive. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, published online ahead of print, 1–38.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. 2015. Gradual loss of analyzability: Diachronic priming effects. In Adli, Aria, García, Marco García & Kaufmann, Göz (eds.), Variation in language: System- and usage-based approaches, 265–88. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venables, William & Ripley, Brian. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel Sosa, Anna & MacFarlane, James. 2002. Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of . Brain and Language 83, 227–36.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith & Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, Hadley & François, Romain. 2015. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr Google Scholar