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

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


• N-grams


• What is an N-gram?


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


• How does this help with research?


• How does this help with research?


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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


• General morphological rules and processes make parsing more efficient


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



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


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


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


• 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



• 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”


• Why is the change significant?


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


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

sounds (c.f. Ehri & Wilce 1980)


• 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)


• So what happened?


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

“seller” not shown – also in relatively constant use


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


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


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

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


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


• 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”


• 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


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


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


• Speakers are equally likely to use “burglarize”

“pedlar” vs. “burglar”

• Spelling not changed in order to back-form


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

unnecessary; in use for other [social] reasons



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

“pedlar” and “peddle”




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

recalling separately memorized form “pedlar”




“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



– Etymological research

Further study



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

derived from French

Further study




derived from French

– Other sociolinguistic applications

Further study




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.

Documents

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