Abstract
The reason which is generally given in the usage-based literature to account for the retention of irregularity in high frequency items during analogical change is entrenchment: a frequently occurring irregular linguistic unit resists analogical levelling because it is highly entrenched in speakers’ mental lexicons through its repeated use. Although previous research similarly suggests that the entrenchment of irregular and regularised forms competing during analogical levelling should be proportional to their frequency of use, evidence for this relation between frequency and entrenchment comes exclusively from corpus-based studies; what is missing, therefore, are behavioural tests contrasting the competing innovative and conservative forms. The present paper aims to provide converging evidence for an entrenchment-based explanation of frequency patterns in analogical change on the basis of data obtained from an experiment in which participants are presented with traditional and analogical variants of a variable currently undergoing analogical levelling. Differences in processing latencies obtained during the experiment are interpreted as differences in entrenchment. The results provide i) evidence in favour of the prevalent entrenchment-based explanation of the conserving effect of frequency in analogical change, and ii) evidence of the current state and spread of the change under investigation.
Funding statement: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Grant Number: GRK DFG 1624 “Frequency effects in language” (University of Freiburg).
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Doris Schönefeld, Peter Racz, the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments on earlier versions of the paper. In addition, I want to express my gratitude to my supervisors Peter Auer and Christian Mair for their constant support during the work on this doctoral thesis. Thanks also to the participants of the pilot study and the main experiment.
Appendix A: Eligible verbs for stimulus sentences
Strong verbs with e/i-gradation eligible for use in stimulus sentences, with base verb lemma token frequency classes listed in DeReWo (Institut für deutsche Sprache 2012b). Frequency classes in the DeReWo list are ordered decreasingly from 0 “highest frequency” to 29 “lowest frequency”. Verbs in boldface occurred in the corpus dataset (Krause-Lerche To appear) and in the stimulus sentences for the experimental study. Verbs in regular print occurred only in the stimulus set for the experiment. Verbs in italics did not occur in either of the two studies.
| BVLTF class above the median | BVLTF class below the median | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| base verb | translation | BVLTF class | base verb | translation | BVLTF class |
| geben | give | 6 | fressen | eat/devour | 13 |
| nehmen | take | 7 | stechen | stab at | 13 |
| sehen | see/look | 7 | bestechen | bribe | 13 |
| treffen | meet/hit | 8 | erschrecken | startle | 13 |
| sprechen | speak | 8 | unterwerfen | subdue/conquer | 13 |
| helfen | help | 9 | verhelfen | help do | 13 |
| lesen | read | 9 | durchbrechen | break through | 13 |
| sterben | die | 9 | zerbrechen | break (to pieces) | 13 |
| übernehmen | take over | 9 | befehlen | command | 14 |
| treten | kick/step | 9 | fechten | fence | 14 |
| brechen | break | 10 | verderben | spoil | 14 |
| werfen | throw | 10 | vermessen | measure | 14 |
| vergessen | forget | 10 | verwerfen | discard | 14 |
| ergeben | surrender | 10 | benehmen | behave | 15 |
| versprechen | promise | 10 | bewerfen | throw at | 15 |
| essen | eat | 11 | erstechen | stab | 15 |
| stehlen | steal | 11 | dreschen | thrash | 16 |
| werben | advertise | 11 | flechten | braid | 16 |
| empfehlen | recommend | 11 | behelfen | make do | 16 |
| vergeben | forgive | 11 | bersten | burst | 16 |
| erwerben | purchase | 11 | besehen | Look at | 16 |
| übergeben | hand over/deliver | 11 | bestehlen | burst | 16 |
| unternehmen | undertake | 11 | melken | milk | 16 |
| begeben | proceed toward/set off | 12 | übertreten | trespass/transgress | 16 |
| messen | measure | 12 | ermessen | gauge | 17 |
| entwerfen | design | 12 | überlesen | read over | 17 |
| besprechen | discuss | 12 | zerstechen | prick all over | 17 |
| bergen | retrieve | 12 | zertreten | trample/tread down | 17 |
| betreten | enter/access | 12 | durchstechen | puncture | 18 |
| bewerben | apply | 12 | erfechten | fight for and win | 19 |
| entnehmen | apply | 12 | verdreschen | thrash (sb.) | 19 |
| übersehen | overlook | 12 | zerdreschen | thrash | 23 |
| übertreffen | surpass | 12 | zerwerfen | throw into pieces | 23 |
| umgeben | surround oneself | 12 | |||
| unterbrechen | surround oneself | 12 | |||
| verbergen | conceal | 12 | |||
| widersprechen | contradict | 12 | |||
Appendix B: Regression tables
References
Alloway, Tracy P. & Ross G. Alloway. 2013. Working memory across the lifespan: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25(1). 84–93.10.1080/20445911.2012.748027Search in Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27.10.3366/cor.2010.0001Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01Search in Google Scholar
Bergmann, Gunter. 2013. Upper Saxon. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The dialects of modern German: A linguistic survey, 290–312. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110294002Search in Google Scholar
Bortz, Jürgen & Christof Schuster. 2010. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 7th edn. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-12770-0Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological studies in language). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.9Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756393.ch19Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Sandra Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In Matthew L. Juge & Jeri L. Moxley (eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society: General session and parasession on pragmatics and grammatical structure, 378–388. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293Search in Google Scholar
Cortese, Michael J. & David A. Balota. 2012. Visual word recognition in skilled adult readers. In Michael J. Spivey, Ken McRae & Marc F. Joanisse (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), 159–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139029377.009Search in Google Scholar
Craik, Fergus I. M., N. D. Anderson, S. A. Kerr & K. Z. H. Li. 1995. Memory changes in normal ageing. In Alan D. Baddeley, Barbara A. Wilson & Fraser N. Watts (eds.), Handbook of memory disorders, 211–241. Chichester: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, Jon A., Manuel Perea & Manuel Carreiras. 2008. Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(7/8). 1002–1020.10.1080/01690960802164242Search in Google Scholar
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27.10.18637/jss.v008.i15Search in Google Scholar
Halekoh, Ulrich & Højsgaard. Søren. 2014. A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: The R package pbkrtest. Journal of Statistical Software 59(9). 1–32.10.18637/jss.v059.i09Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Andrea D. Sims. 2010. Understanding morphology (Understanding language series), 2nd edn. London: Hodder Education.Search in Google Scholar
Hauk, Olaf & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2004. Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology 115. 1090–1103.10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.020Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data- and the importance of intuition. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 171–210. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.13.09hofSearch in Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In William Christie (ed.), Current progress in linguistics, 95–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Institut für deutsche Sprache (IDS). 2012a. DeReKo: The German reference corpus. http://www1.ids-mannheim.de/kl.html (accessed 9 September 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Institut für deutsche Sprache (IDS). 2012b. Korpusbasierte Wortgrundformenliste DeReWo. http://www1.ids-mannheim.de/kl/projekte/methoden/derewo.html (accessed 9 April 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Tore Nesset & R. Harald Baayen. 2010. Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(1). 29–48.10.1515/cllt.2010.002Search in Google Scholar
Krause-Lerche, Anne. To appear. Conservation in ongoing analogical change: The measurement and effect(s) of token frequency. To appear in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.10.1515/cllt-2018-0037Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lefcheck, Jonathan S. 2015. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modeling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(5). 573–579.10.1111/2041-210X.12512Search in Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2011. Introducing sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Meyers, John E., Kurt Volkert & Anh Diep. 2000. Sentence repetition test: Updated norms and clinical utility. Applied Neuropsychology 7(3). 154–159.10.1207/S15324826AN0703_6Search in Google Scholar
Mousikou, Petroula & Kathleen Rastle. 2015. Lexical frequency effects on articulation: A comparison of picture naming and reading aloud. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1571.10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01571Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Syntax or morphology: German particle verbs revisited. In Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre & Silke Urban (eds.), Verb-particle explorations, 119–140. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110902341.119Search in Google Scholar
Noth, Harald. 1993. Alemannisches Dialekthandbuch vom Kaiserstuhl und seiner Umgebung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Schillinger.Search in Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. & A. Wingfield. 1965. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 17(4). 273–281.10.1080/17470216508416445Search in Google Scholar
Philipp, Marthe & Arlette Bothorel-Witz. 2013. Low Alemannic. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The dialects of modern German: A linguistic survey, 313–336. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke etc.: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230286610Search in Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2001. Variability, frequency and productivity in the irrealis domain of French. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 405–428. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.45.20popSearch in Google Scholar
Rohde, Douglas. 2001–2003. Linger. http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Linger/.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2010. Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Dylan Glynn (ed.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 101–133. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226423.101Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (Language and the Human Lifespan), 1–24. Washington: APA; Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1037/15969-002Search in Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2011. On evidence and the convergence of evidence in linguistic research. In Doris Schönefeld (ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research, 1–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.33Search in Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 361–382. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/tsl.45.18smiSearch in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 113–150.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113Search in Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 177). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197808Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Roots of English: Exploring the history of dialects. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139046718Search in Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45(1). 9–25.10.2307/411748Search in Google Scholar
Whaley, C. P. 1978. Word-nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17. 143–154.10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90110-XSearch in Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2009. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3Search in Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2). 253–290.10.1515/CLLT.2008.011Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (DOI:https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0052).
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
