Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:07:42.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are non-standard dialects more ‘natural’ than the standard? A test case from English verb morphology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2010

LIESELOTTE ANDERWALD
LIESELOTTE ANDERWALD*
Affiliation:
Kiel University, Germany
*
Author's address: English Department, Kiel University, Olshausenstr. 40, D-24098Kiel, Germany[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that at least in some subsets of grammar, non-standard dialects are indeed more natural than their standard counterparts. I present data from the new Freiburg English Dialect corpus FRED, for the first time comparing and quantifying traditional dialect data from across the whole of Great Britain. The most frequent non-standard verb forms cluster around forms like drink – drunk – drunk and sing – sung – sung. The framework of Natural Morphology (Wurzel 1984, 1987) in combination with Bybee's Network Model (Bybee 1985, 1995) is employed to define the notion of naturalness and to explain why this verb class has been strengthened historically, and is still attracting new members today.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 251 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This paper has greatly benefited from the insightful comments of two anonymous JL referees, to whom I would like to express my thanks. Needless to say, any remaining mistakes and oversights are entirely my own.

References

REFERENCES

Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce P.. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90, 119–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2009. The morphology of English dialects: Verb-formation in non-Standard English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2010. Norm vs. variation in British English strong verbs: The case of past tense sang vs. sung. Ms., Kiel University. [Under review, English Language and Linguistics.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte & Kortmann, Bernd. 2002. Typology and dialectology: A programmatic sketch. In Marle, Jaap van & Berns, Jan (eds.), Present-day dialectology: Problems and findings, 159–171. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte & Wagner, Susanne. 2007. FRED – The Freiburg English Dialect Corpus. In Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen & Moisl, Hermann (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora, vol. 1, 35–53. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Probabilistic approaches to morphology. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 229–287. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1997. A class of English irregular verbs. English Studies 78, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce P.. 2001. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti. 2003. Morphological status and (de)grammaticalization: The Swedish possessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26, 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bülbring, Karl D. 1891. Ablaut in the modern dialects of the South of England. London: English Dialect Society.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1988. Morphology as lexical organization. In Hammond, Michael & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 119–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Moder, Carol Lynn. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Why small children cannot change language on their own: Suggestions from the English past tense. In Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.), 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 29–37. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70, 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2001. Umlaut as signans and signatum: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 1–23.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2002. An introduction to English morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Crombie, Alexander. 1809. A treatise on the etymology and syntax of the English language. London: J. Johnson.Google Scholar
Crowdy, Steve. 1994. Spoken corpus transcription. Literary and Linguistic Computing 9, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugherty, Kim G. & Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. Beyond rules and exceptions: A connectionist approach to inflectional morphology. In Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L. & Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.), The reality of linguistic rules, 353–388. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald & Wurzel, Wolfgang U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esser, Jürgen. 1988. Die unregelmäßigen Verben im heutigen Englisch aus diachroner und synchroner Sicht. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 36, 26–46.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2008. Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 125–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Mohanan, Karuvannur P.. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57–116.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Nielsen, Hans Frede. 1986. Irregularities in Modern English. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Harnisch, Rüdiger. 2000. Morphologische Theorien und dialektale Empirie: System-, Typ- und Wandelmodelle im Lichte einiger Fallbeispiele. Sprachwissenschaft 25, 367–386.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 1998. Snuck: The development of irregular preterite forms. In Nixon, Graham & Honey, John (eds.), An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang, 31–40. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey, K. Pullum et al. . 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allan & Unwin.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1995. On analyzing the tense–aspect system of English: A state-of-the-art report. In Riehle, & Keiper, (eds.), 153–169.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. The triad tense–aspect–aktionsart: Problems and possible solutions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1995. Compositionality and the perfect. In Riehle, & Keiper, (eds.), 183–199.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1999. Typology and dialectology. In Caron, B. (ed.), 16th International Congress of Linguists, Paris 1997. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 2002a. New approaches to dialectology: Introduction. In Kastovsky, Dieter, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Reichl, Susanne (eds.), Anglistentag 2001 Wien: Proceedings, 3–6. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 2002b. New prospects for the study of English dialect syntax: Impetus from syntactic theory and language typology. In Barbiers, Sjef, Cornips, Leonie & van der Kleij, Susanne (eds.), Syntactic microvariation, 185–213. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar W. with Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend & Upton, Clive (eds.). 2004. A handbook of varieties of English: A multimedia reference tool; vol 1: Phonology, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1978. Toward a theory of social dialect variation. Language in Society 7, 17–36.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Proliferation and option-cutting: The strong verb in the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. In Stein, Dieter & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.), Towards a Standard English: 1600–1800, 81–113. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28, 285–312.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1996. The Romance gerund an ‘system-dependent naturalness’ in morphology. Transactions of the Philological Society 94, 167–201.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1998. Towards an explanation of some morphological changes which ‘should never have happened’. In Schmid, Monika S., Austin, Jennifer R. & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997, 241–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1987. System-independent morphological naturalness. In Dressler, et al. , 25–58.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1988. Morphological naturalness. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April. 2000. Lexical Phonology and the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Thomas E. 1998. More on drug/dragged and snuck/sneaked: Evidence from the American Midwest. Journal of English Linguistics 26, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2006. Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29, 201–238.Google Scholar
OED. 1994. Oxford English dictionary on CD-ROM, 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold & Michael, V. Barry (eds.). 1969–71. Survey of English dialects, vol. 2: The West Midland counties. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold & Wilfrid, J. Halliday (eds.). 1962–64. Survey of English dialects, vol. 1: The six Northern counties and the Isle of Man. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold & Philip, M. Tilling (eds.). 1969–71. Survey of English dialects, vol. 3: The East Midland counties and East Anglia. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold & Martyn, F. Wakelin (eds.). 1967–68. Survey of English dialects, vol. 4: The Southern counties. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1998. Words and rules. Lingua 106, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven & Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In Sutton, Laurel A. & Johnson, Christopher (eds.), The Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15–18, 1991 (BLS 17): General Session on the Grammar of Event Structure, 230–251. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Pinnock, W. 1830. A comprehensive grammar of the English language; with exercises, &c. intended for the use of schools and for private tuition. London: Poole & Edwards.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell. [Originally published 1993, online at Rutger's Optimality Archive http://roa.rutgers.edu/.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Riehle, Wolfgang & Hugo, Keiper (eds.). (1995). Anglistentag 1994 Graz: Proceedings. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, Timothy E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 111–144. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. & McClelland, James L.. 1986. On learning the past-tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart, David E. & McClelland, James L. (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2, 216–271. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1998. Syntax and varieties. In Cheshire, Jenny & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Taming the vernacular: From dialect to written standard language, 35–50. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert & Minkova, Donka. 2001. English words: History and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tortora, Christina (ed.). 2003. The syntax of Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Max. 1993. On the hierarchy of naturalness principles in inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1898–1905. The English dialect dictionary. Oxford: Frowde.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph. 1905. The English dialect grammar. Oxford: Frowde.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Dressler, et al. , 59–96.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1990a. The mechanism of inflection: Lexicon representations, rules, and irregularities. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 203–216. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1990b. Morphologisierung – Komplexität – Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsklärung. In Boretzky, Norbert, Enninger, Werner & Stolz, Thomas (eds.), Spielarten der Natürlichkeit – Spielarten der Ökonomie: Beiträge zum 5. Essener Kolloquium über ‘Grammatikalisierung: Natürlichkeit und Systemökonomie’ vom 6.10. – 8.10.1988 an der Universität Essen, vol. 2.1, 129–153. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 2000. Inflectional system and markedness. In Lahiri, Aditi (ed.), Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology, 193–214. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyld, Henry C. 1927. A short history of English: With a bibliography and lists of texts and editions, 3rd edn., revised and enlarged. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University. http://profile.nus.edu.sg/fass/chsxz/Inflectional%20Morphology%20in%20Optimality%20Theory.pdf (4 July 2010).Google Scholar