Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 183–204

Ablaut pattern extension as partial regularization strategy in German and Luxembourgish

The present contribution considers the nature of ablaut pattern extension and the determinants contributing to it. Following Morphological Economy Theory (e.g., Werner, 1987), it argues that analogical pattern extensions are highly functional, i.e., they constitute frequency-driven partial regularization strategies within verbal systems. This assumption is supported by diachronic and empirical data from two case studies: In German, low-frequency strong verbs reduced stem allomorphy by adopting the Class II pattern [o pret =o pp ], a partial leveling that may precede the weakening of strong forms (e.g., bellen – ball – gebollen → boll – gebollen → bellte – gebellt ‘to bark’). In Luxembourgish, a uniform preterite marker ou emerged as a consequence of drastic preterite loss.

Keywords: ablaut pattern extension, regularization, partial leveling, usage-based approach, German, Luxembourgish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Two case studies
    • 2.1Paradigm leveling, pattern extension, and regularizations
    • 2.2German
      • 2.2.1The analogical basis of [o pret  = o pp ]
      • 2.2.2The pattern [o pret  = o pp ] as a partial regularization strategy
    • 2.3Luxembourgish
  • 3.Crux of the matter
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.09now
References
Anderwald, L.
(2009) The morphology of English dialects: Verb-formation in non-standard English. Cambridge/New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Augst, G.
(1975) Wie stark sind die starken Verben? Überlegungen zur Subklassifikation der nhd. Verben. In G. Augst (Ed.), Untersuchungen zum Morpheminventar der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (pp. 231–281). Tübingen.Google Scholar
Bittner, A.
(1996) Starke ‚schwache’ Verben und schwache ‚starke’ Verben. Deutsche Verbflexion und Natürlichkeit. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and cognitive processes, 10(5), 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Moder, C. L.
(1983) Morphological classes as natural categories. Language, 59(1), 251–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L.
(2013) Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Corbett, G.
(2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language, 83, 8–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, A.
(2008) Flexionsmorphologische Irregularität – ein graduelles Phänomen. Doch wie lassen sich Grade bestimmten? In C. Stroh & A. Urdze (Eds.), Morphologische Irregularität. Neue Ansätze, Sichtweisen und Daten (pp. 1–28). Bochum.Google Scholar
(2011) Konjugationsklassenwandel. Prinzipien des Ab-, Um-, Aus- und Aufbaus verbalflexivischer Allomorphie in germanischen Sprachen. Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
Dammel, A. & Nowak, J. & Schmuck, M.
(2010) Strong verb paradigm levelling in four Germanic languages. A category frequency approach. JGL, 22(4), 337–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, A. & Nübling, D.
(2006) The Superstable Marker as an Indicator of Categorial Weakness? Folia Linguistica, 60(1–2), 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, B. C.
(1993) A Grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin/New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden
(9 2016) Die Grammatik. Duden Band 4. Mannheim et al.Google Scholar
Durrell, M.
(1999) Zum Ausgleich der Ablautalternanzen im Niederdeutschen. ZDL, 105, 39–49.Google Scholar
(2001) Strong verb Ablaut in the West Germanic languages. In S. Watts et al. (Eds.), Zur Verbmorphologie germanischer Sprachen (pp. 5–18). Tübingen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, A.
(2008) Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness: Historical convergence and universal grammar. In J. Good (Ed.), Explaining linguistic universals (pp. 125–143). Oxford. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hare, M. & Elman, J.
(1995) Learning and morphological change. Cognition, 56(1), 61–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempen, U.
(1998) Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Diachrone Morphologie. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Köpcke, K.-M.
(1999) Prototypisch starke und schwache Verben der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In M. Butt & N. Fuhrhop (Eds.), Variation und Stabilität in der Wortstruktur (pp. 45–60). Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: theoretical preriquisites. Stanford.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E. et al.
(2007) Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449, 713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LWB
(1950–1977) = Luxemburger Wörterbuch, Volumes I-V. Luxemburg.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. et al.
(1992) Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(4), 1–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, W.
(1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Nowak, J.
(2010) On the emergence of an “8th ablaut class” in German and Dutch. JGL, 22(4), 361–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Zur Legitimation einer 8. Ablautreihe. Eine kontrastive Analyse zu ihrer Entstehung im Deutschen, Niederländischen und Luxemburgischen. Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Nowak, J. & Schmuck, M.
(2013) Ablautausgleich in den germanischen Sprachen. In F. Gruzca & J. Zhu (Eds.), Akten des XII. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses Warschau 2010, Vol. 15 (pp. 21–26). Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
Nübling, D.
(1999)  Wie die Alten sungen… Zur Rolle von Frequenz und Allomorphie beim präteritalen Numerusausgleich im Frühneuhochdeutschen. ZS, 17(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
(2000) Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Tübingen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) The Development of “junk”. Irregularization Strategies of HAVE and SAY in the Germanic Languages. Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 53–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., Beuls, K. & Van de Velde, F.
(2015) The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic. An agent-based model. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 5, 81–102.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1999) Words and rules. The ingredients of language. New York.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E.
(1988) Entstehung von Suppletion und Natürliche Morphologie. ZPSK, 41(4), 453–462.Google Scholar
Schmuck, M.
(2010) Relevanzgesteuerter verbalmorphologischer Wandel im Deutschen und Schwedischen. In Dammel, A./Kürschner, S./Nübling, D. (Eds.), Kontrastive Germanistische Linguistik (pp. 523–552). Hildesheim et al.Google Scholar
Solms, H.-J.
(1984) Die morphologischen Veränderungen der Stammvokale der starken Verben im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Untersucht an Texten des 14.-18. Jahrhunderts. Bonn.Google Scholar
Steiner, J.
(2007): Regel – Schema – Lexikon. Untersuchungen zum Stark-Schwach-Kontinuum im Deutschen und Englischen. Master’s thesis, Mainz University.Google Scholar
Werner, O.
(1987) The aim of morphological change is a good mixture – not a uniform language type. In G. A. Ramat et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 7th international Conference of Historical Linguistics (pp. 591–616). Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, W. U.
(1984) Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin.Google Scholar
Zager, D.
(1980) A real time process model of morphological change. PhD, State University of New York.Google Scholar