orthographic regularization of morphology in english, and the advantages of n-gram research maxwell...

Orthographic regularization of morphology in English, and the advantages of N-gram research

Maxwell J. SowellMarissa C. Huston-Carico

Eric D. Warburg(UC Davis)

Researching morphological change

Researching morphological change

• N-grams

Researching morphological change

• What is an N-gram?

Researching morphological change

• What is an N-gram?– 1-gram: “morphology”– 2-gram: “morphological process”– 3-gram: “morphological process research”– etc.

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• When did “yuppie” come into use?

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• What about “yuppiedom”?

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• “yuppie” “yuppiedom”

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• Advantages over theoretical process research:

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• Advantages over theoretical process research:– “Theoretical”

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• Advantages over theoretical process research:– “Theoretical”– Hard evidence that one word was used first

Researching morphological change

• How does this help with research?• Advantages over theoretical process research:– “Theoretical”– Hard evidence that one word was used first– Specific dates can be implemented in

sociolinguistic research

Morphological regularization

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient– /write + -groblaxt/ - past tense– /read + -pfeffets/ - past tense

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient

• Still some irregular morphology:– ox oxen– eat ate

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient– What would the plural of /boug/ be?

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient– What would the plural of /boug/ be?– The past tense of /teev/?

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient– What would the plural of /boug/ be?– The past tense of /teev/?

• Speakers tend to use regularized forms when irregular forms are unknown or not drawn from the lexicon quickly enough

Morphological regularization

• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient

• Speakers tend to use regularized forms when irregular forms are unknown or not drawn from the lexicon quickly enough

• If morphology does not reflect close relations between words, regularization is a risk

“pedlar” “peddler”

“pedlar” “peddler”

• Why is the change significant?

“pedlar” “peddler”

• Why is the change significant?• More generally, why is spelling significant?

“pedlar” “peddler”

• Why is the change significant?• More generally, why is spelling significant?– speakers retain visual spellings by symbolizing

sounds (c.f. Ehri & Wilce 1980)

“pedlar” “peddler”

• Why is the change significant?• More generally, why is spelling significant?– speakers retain visual spellings by symbolizing

sounds (c.f. Ehri & Wilce 1980)– visualized representations of words, rather than

their sequences of sounds, are used to cognitively parse them into meaningful parts (c.f. Olson 1996)

“pedlar” “peddler”

• So what happened?

“pedlar” “peddler”

• So what happened?• No new semantic niche for “peddler” to fill

“seller” not shown – also in relatively constant use

“pedlar” “peddler”

• “peddle” comes in near when “peddler” did

“pedlar” “peddler”

• closely relate the two lexemes’ roots with morphological reanalysis after all in use

“pedlar” “peddler”

• closely relate the two lexemes’ roots with morphological reanalysis after all in use

• /peddle + -er/ cognitively closer to /peddle/

“pedlar” “peddler”

• What about “peddler” being reanalyzed in order to create “peddle” via back-formation?

“pedlar” “peddler”

• What about “peddler” being reanalyzed in order to create “peddle” via back-formation?– “peddling” already existed; more feasible to

remove an inflectional affix than a derivational one to yield “peddle”

“pedlar” “peddler”

• What about “peddler” being reanalyzed in order to create “peddle” via back-formation?– “peddling” already existed; more feasible to

remove an inflectional affix than a derivational one to yield “peddle”

– seemingly no reason for a spelling change if ‘peddle’ is not causing the change

“burglar” and “*burgler”

• Why is “*burgler” not attested?

“*burgler” insignificant and so not shown

“burglar” and “*burgler”

• Why is “*burgler” not attested?– differences in relative usage of related lexemes

“burglar” and “*burgler”

• Why is “*burgler” not attested?– differences in relative usage of related lexemes– “burgle” is a humorous back-formation

“burglar” and “*burgler”

• Speakers are equally likely to use “burglarize”

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form• “Peddle” (and “burgle”, too) semantically

unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form• “Peddle” (and “burgle”, too) semantically

unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons• Rising usage caused speakers to relate

“pedlar” and “peddle”

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form• “Peddle” (and “burgle”, too) semantically

unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons• Rising usage caused speakers to relate

“pedlar” and “peddle”• Regularized with /-er/ ending instead of

recalling separately memorized form “pedlar”

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form• “Peddle” (and “burgle”, too) semantically

unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons• Rising usage caused speakers to relate

“pedlar” and “peddle”• Regularized with /-er/ ending instead of

recalling separately memorized form “pedlar”• “pedlar” fell out of use in American English;

efficiency taking priority is a noted trend

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research• For English /-er/ regularization– Without many English words ending in [-ar] that

semantically correlate with the deverbal nominalizer /-er/, research is limited

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research• For English /-er/ regularization– Without many English words ending in [-ar] that

semantically correlate with the deverbal nominalizer /-er/, research is limited

– Etymological research

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research• For English /-er/ regularization– Without many English words ending in [-ar] that

semantically correlate with the deverbal nominalizer /-er/, research is limited

– Etymological research• e.g. “pedlar” is derived from Latin, while “burglar” is

derived from French

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research• For English /-er/ regularization– Without many English words ending in [-ar] that

semantically correlate with the deverbal nominalizer /-er/, research is limited

– Etymological research• e.g. “pedlar” is derived from Latin, while “burglar” is

derived from French

– Other sociolinguistic applications

Further study

• Using raw chronology for derivational research• For English /-er/ regularization– Without many English words ending in [-ar] that

semantically correlate with the deverbal nominalizer /-er/, research is limited

– Etymological research• e.g. “pedlar” is derived from Latin, while “burglar” is

derived from French

– Other sociolinguistic applications• Why words like “peddle” come into use/peak in use

Selected references• Bourassa, D. C., & Treiman, R. (2008). Morphological constancy in

spelling: A comparison of children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Dyslexia, 14(3), 155-169. doi: 10.1002/dys.368

• Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of orthography on readers' conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 371-385. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400009802

• Hoad, T. F. (1993). The concise oxford dictionary of english etymology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.

• Hudson, G. (2000). Essential introductory linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

• Olson, D. R. (1996). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.