The Multiplanar Nature of Frequency

Thomas Berg

doi:10.1515/glot-2016-0001

Article

The Multiplanar Nature of Frequency

Thomas Berg

Published/Copyright: June 15, 2016

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Glottotheory Volume 7 Issue 1

Abstract

As reflected by the distinction between types and tokens, frequency is standardly conceived of in a two-dimensional fashion. This conception draws on the linguistic hierarchy in that token frequency is calculated at a higher structural level than type frequency. The fact that the linguistic hierarchy consists of more than two levels raises the possibility of investigating frequency from a multiplanar angle. This approach is illustrated with a three-level analysis of derivational affixes in English, German, and Dutch. The lowest level represents the number of affix types, the intermediate level the number of words of which these affixes are a part, and the highest level the textual frequency of these affixed words. The three languages exhibit significant variation. While English shows a consistent increase, German shows a consistent decrease in the suffix-to-prefix ratios from the lower to the higher levels. Dutch is inconsistent in displaying an increase from the lowest to the intermediate level but a decrease from the intermediate to the highest level. A good part of the explanation for this difference lies in the disparate role of prefixing in the three languages. The multiplanar approach provides novel perspectives on a number of issues such as the locus of linguistic change. Preliminary evidence suggests that the loss of a lower-level unit may be accompanied by “collateral damage” at the higher level.

Keywords: morphology; affix; type frequency; token frequency; English; German; Dutch

Acknowledgements

Like its predecessor, this study owes an immense debt of gratitude to Tayo Takada for his masterful exploration of the CELEX lexical database. I also thank Hagen Peukert, Barbara Schlücker and Marion Neubauer for helping me when I needed their advice.

References

Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Richard Piepenbrock and Leon Gulikers. 1995. The CELEX lexical database. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Search in Google Scholar

Berg, Thomas. 2001. Linguistic structure and change: An explanation from language processing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Berg, Thomas. 2012. Structure in language: A dynamic perspective. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203890165Search in Google Scholar

Berg, Thomas. 2014. On the relationship between type and token frequency. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 21(3). 199–222.10.1080/09296174.2014.911505Search in Google Scholar

Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., William Pagliuca and Revere D. Perkins. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In William Croft, Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony, 1–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.20.04bybSearch in Google Scholar

Chetail, Fabienne and Stéfanie Mathey. 2010. Info Syll: A syllabary providing statistical information on phonological and orthographic syllables. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39. 485–504.10.1007/s10936-009-9146-ySearch in Google Scholar

Clopper, Cynthia G. 2002. Frequency of stress patterns in English: A computational analysis. Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers Online 2.Search in Google Scholar

Content, Alain, Philippe Mousty and Monique Radeau 1990. BRULEX. Une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le français écrit et parlé (An electronic database for the analysis of written and spoken French). L’Année Psychologique 90. 551–566.10.3406/psy.1990.29428Search in Google Scholar

Erben, Johannes. 2003. Hauptaspekte der Entwicklung der Wortbildung in der Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (Major aspects of the historical development of German word formation). In Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger (eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Band 3, 2525–2539. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Grant, Lynn E. 2005. Frequency of ‘core idioms’ in the British National Corpus (BNC). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10. 429–451.10.1075/ijcl.10.4.03graSearch in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. and Gary Gilligan. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74. 219–259.10.1016/0024-3841(88)90060-5Search in Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer and R. Harald Baayen. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 203–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_8Search in Google Scholar

Hiltunen, Risto. 1983. The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90. 927–960.10.1353/lan.2014.0105Search in Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In William M. Christie Jr. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 95–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Search in Google Scholar

Johansson, Stig and Knut Hofland. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar

Landauer, T.K. and L.A. Streeter. 1973. Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumption for theories of word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12. 119–131.10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80001-5Search in Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753459Search in Google Scholar

Oostdijk, Nelleke and Pieter de Haan. 1994. Clause patterns in Modern British English: A corpus-based (quantitative) study. ICAME Journal 18. 41–79.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, A. Hood. 1965. A statistical linguistic analysis of American English. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112416426Search in Google Scholar

Roland, Douglas, Frederic Dick and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57(3). 348–379.10.1016/j.jml.2007.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Schiller, Niels O., Antje S. Meyer, R. Harald Baayen and Willem J.M. Levelt. 1996. A comparison of lexeme and speech syllables in Dutch. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 3. 8–28.10.1080/09296179608590060Search in Google Scholar

Zirkel, Linda. 2010. Prefix combinations in English: Structural and processing factors. Morphology 20. 239–266.10.1007/s11525-010-9151-8Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-6-15

Published in Print: 2016-6-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2016-0001

Keywords for this article

morphology; affix; type frequency; token frequency; English; German; Dutch