1. Orthographic regularization of morphology in English, and the advantages of N-gram research Maxwell J. Sowell Marissa C. Huston-Carico Eric D. Warburg (UC Davis)

2. Researching morphological change

3. N-grams

4. Researching morphological change What is an N-gram?

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

6. Researching morphological change How does this help with research?

7. Researching morphological change How does this help with research?

8. Researching morphological change How does this help with research? When did “yuppie” come into use?

9. Researching morphological change How does this help with research? What about “yuppiedom”?

10. Researching morphological change How does this help with research? “yuppie”  “yuppiedom”

11. Researching morphological change How does this help with research? Advantages over theoretical process research:

12. Researching morphological change How does this help with research? Advantages over theoretical process research: – “Theoretical”

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

14. 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

15. Morphological regularization

16. General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient

17. Morphological regularization General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient – /write + -groblaxt/ - past tense – /read + -pfeffets/ - past tense

18. Morphological regularization General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient Still some irregular morphology: – ox  oxen – eat  ate

19. Morphological regularization General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient – What would the plural of /boug/ be?

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

21. 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

22. 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

23. “pedlar”  “peddler”

24. Why is the change significant?

25. “pedlar”  “peddler” Why is the change significant? More generally, why is spelling significant?

26. “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)

27. “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)

28. “pedlar”  “peddler” So what happened?

29. “pedlar”  “peddler” So what happened? No new semantic niche for “peddler” to fill “seller” not shown – also in relatively constant use

30. “pedlar”  “peddler” “peddle” comes in near when “peddler” did

31. “pedlar”  “peddler” closely relate the two lexemes’ roots with morphological reanalysis after all in use

32. “pedlar”  “peddler” closely relate the two lexemes’ roots with morphological reanalysis after all in use /peddle + -er/ cognitively closer to /peddle/

33. “pedlar”  “peddler” What about “peddler” being reanalyzed in order to create “peddle” via back-formation?

34. “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”

35. “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

36. “burglar” and “*burgler” Why is “*burgler” not attested? “*burgler” insignificant and so not shown

37. “burglar” and “*burgler” Why is “*burgler” not attested? – differences in relative usage of related lexemes

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

39. “burglar” and “*burgler” Speakers are equally likely to use “burglarize”

40. “pedlar” vs. “burglar” Spelling not changed in order to back-form

41. “pedlar” vs. “burglar” Spelling not changed in order to back-form “Peddle” (and “burgle”, too) semantically unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons

42. “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”

43. “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”

44. “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

45. Further study Using raw chronology for derivational research

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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.