Cover not available
Article published In:
Asia-Pacific Language Variation
Vol. 3:2 (2017) ► pp.200–231

Morphological relative frequency impedes the use of stylistic variants

Evidence from a corpus of vernacular Japanese

| Kwansei Gakuin University
| Shigakukan University
The sociolinguistic enterprise has demonstrated that speakers manipulate linguistic variants as they construct their speech style. Contrary to this expectation, this study introduces specific cases in which stylistic variation is highly constrained. We examine the verbal negative suffix in Kansai vernacular Japanese. We first demonstrate that this variable indexes speech style. We then show that in a few specific contexts, such as following the verb stem shir- ‘know’, speakers overwhelmingly use a single variant, in this case, shira-n ‘not know’. We point out that the unusual forms such as shira-n all have a high relative frequency compared to the other forms in their paradigms. Complex forms such as the English word insane, which occur more frequently than their parts (in+sane), are difficult to decompose. We claim that this phenomenon also impedes stylistic variation as forms such as shira-n are not readily decomposed into verb stem + negative suffix.
Keywords: morphology, frequency, Japanese, style, verbal negative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Stylistic variation
    • 1.2The pliable nature of language
    • 1.3Speech style and Japanese dialects
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Data source
    • 2.2Independent variables
    • 2.3Quantifying speech style
      • 2.3.1Stative verbs: Iru/oru ‘be, exist’
      • 2.3.2The non-past copula
      • 2.3.3Nasalization of -ru
      • 2.3.4Sentence-final particles and adverbial intensifiers
      • 2.3.5Adjective Ii~ee
    • 2.4The SJ index
    • 2.5The dependent variable: The verbal negative suffix
      • 2.5.1Overview of the verbal negative suffix
      • 2.5.2 suru ‘do’, shiru ‘know’, wakaru ‘understand’, and iru ‘need’
      • 2.5.3Modal obligation
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Verbal negative suffix variant usage: General patterning
    • 3.2Verbal negative suffix variant usage: The specific contexts
  • 4. The common link: Relative frequency
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 January 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aplv.16009.hef
References (44)
References
Arnon, Inbal, & Snider, Neal (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abramowicz, Łukasz (2007). Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13(2), 27–37.Google Scholar
Alegre, Maria, & Gordon, Peter (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 401, 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Robert, Greer, Kristen, & Holland, Cory (2013). Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19(2). Available from [URL]
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., … Schoenemann, Tom (2009). Language Is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 591(Suppl. 1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 141, 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Childs, Becky, & Van Herk, Gerard (2014). Work that – s!: Drag queens, gender, identity, and traditional Newfoundland English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(5), 634–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conklin, Kathy, & Schmitt, Norbert (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 45–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville, Hippisley, Andrew, Brown, Dunstan, & Marriott, Paul (2001). Frequency, regularity, and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 201–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron (2008). The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14(1), 97–106.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erker, Danny, & Guy, Gregory R. (2012). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language, 881, 526–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fratini, Viviana, Acha, Joana, & Laka, Itziar (2014). Frequency and morphological irregularity are independent variables: Evidence from a corpus study of Spanish verbs. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10(2), 289–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2008). Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6), 1041–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heffernan, Kevin, & Sato, Yo (2017). Relative frequency and the holistic processing of morphology: Evidence from a corpus of vernacular Japanese. Asia Pacific Language Variation 3(1), 67–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In William M. Christie (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel E. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. (1998). Men’s identities and sociolinguistic variation: The case of fraternity men. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21, 69–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Koenraad (1996). Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Neu, Helene (1980). Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: A statistical analysis. In William Labov (Ed.), Locating language in time and space (pp. 37–54). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shigeko (2008). The use of “regional” and “standard” Japanese in conversations: A case study from Osaka. In Junko Mori & Amy Snyder Ohta (Eds.), Japanese applied linguistics: Discourse and social perspectives (pp. 132–159). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Makiko, & Ujihara, Yasuko (2006). Kansai (Ōsaka) ben nyūmon [An introduction to Kansai (Osaka) dialect]. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoten.Google Scholar
Palter, D. C., & Horiuchi Slotsve, Kaoru (1995). Colloquial Kansai Japanese. Singapore: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2006). The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics, 34(4), 516–530. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renn, Jennifer, & Terr, J. Michael (2009). Operationalizing style: Quantifying the use of style shift in the speech of African American adolescents. American Speech, 84(4), 367–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Lisa D., Weber-Fox, Christine M., & Neville, Helen J. (2008). Varying degrees of plasticity in different subsystems within language. In James R. Pomerantz (Ed.), Topics in integrative neuroscience (pp. 125–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sano, Shin-Ichiro (2015). The role of examplars and lexical frequency in Rendaku. Open Linguistics, 11, 329–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie (2002). Investigating stylistic variation. In J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, & Natalie Schilling-Estes (Eds.). The handbook of language variation and change (pp. 375–401). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takagi, Chie (2004). Jakunensō Kansai hōgen no hiteiji ni miru gengo henka no taipu [Types of language changes seen in the negative suffix of the Kansai dialect of young speakers]. Nihongo Kagaku, 161, 25–46.Google Scholar
Taft, Marcus (2004). Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57(4), 745–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith (2014). Sound change without frequency effects: Ramifications for phonological theory. In Robert E. Santana-LaBarge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Lingusitics (pp. 457–465). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Edith L. Bavin (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 69–88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary & Westbury, Chris (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsuji, Kayoko (2003). Kyōtoshi hōhen washa no sutairu kirikae [Style shifting in the speech of Kyoto dialect speakers]. Handai Shaikai Gengogaku Kenkyū Nōto, 31, 2–27.Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 92(1–2), 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Gregory Hickok & Steven Small (Eds.), The neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Lancker Sidtis, Diana (2012). Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In Miriam Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (pp. 342–367). Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, James (2012). Form, function, and frequency in phonological variation. Language Variation and Change, 24(3), 397–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Heffernan, Kevin, Yusuke Imanishi & Masaru Honda
2018. Showcasing the interaction of generative and emergent linguistic knowledge with case marker omission in spoken Japanese. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.