The Evolution of Frisian Verb Inflection

Oscar Strik

Centre for Language & Cognition GroningenUniversity of Groningen

Frysk FilologekongresLeeuwarden, 10 December 2014

Oscar Strik (Groningen) The Evolution of Frisian Verb Inflection 10 dec 2014 — FFK, Leeuwarden 1 / 23

Overview

a Weak, strong, irregular inflection

a Class composition of the Frisian verb system throughout history

a Changes in productivity

a Analogical modelling

Weak, strong, irregular inflectionDefinitions

Strong verbs:

preterite participle

No suffix (monosyllabic) Nasal suffix (e.g. -n)Often vowel alternation (ablaut) Often vowel alternation (ablaut)

(Prefix, e.g. ge-)

Examples:

Frisian help-e holp holp-en ‘help’Dutch lop-en liep ge-lop-en ‘walk’English break broke brok-en

Strong verbs:

No suffix (monosyllabic) Nasal suffix (e.g. -n)Often vowel alternation (ablaut) Often vowel alternation (ablaut)

(Prefix, e.g. ge-)

Examples:

Frisian help-e holp holp-en ‘help’Dutch lop-en liep ge-lop-en ‘walk’English break broke brok-en

Compare with weak verbs:

(Remains of a) dental suffix: (Remains of a) dental suffix:(e.g. -de, -te) (e.g. -d, -t)

(Prefix, e.g. ge-)

Examples:

Frisian wurk-je wurk-e wurk-e ‘work’Dutch hakk-en hak-te ge-hak-t ‘chop’English walk walk-ed walk-ed

Compare with weak verbs:

(Remains of a) dental suffix: (Remains of a) dental suffix:(e.g. -de, -te) (e.g. -d, -t)

(Prefix, e.g. ge-)

Examples:

Frisian wurk-je wurk-e wurk-e ‘work’Dutch hakk-en hak-te ge-hak-t ‘chop’English walk walk-ed walk-ed

Irregular verbs:

Difficult concept, because all patterns can — in principle — be described byrules.

In practice, ‘irregular’ is used mostly as description for verbs with extremelysmall or unique inflection patterns.

Examples:

Frisian hawwe hie hân ‘have’Frisian sykje socht socht ‘seek’Frisian lizze lei lein ‘lay, lie’

Irregular verbs:

Examples:

Irregular verbs:

Examples:

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemOld Frisian

S2 2% S3

3% S4 0%

W1 28%

W1 W2 2%

W2 54%

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemEarlyModern Frisian

S1b 1%

S3 3% S4

1% S5 2% S6

1% S7 1%

W1 19% W1 W2

W2 60%

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemModern Frisian

assib 1%

IRR 2%

S1b 1% S2

2% S3 5% S4

0% S5 1%

S6 1% S7

W1 18% W1 W2

W2 56%

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemMain developments

☞ Not all weak verbs in Modern Frisian are represented in the charts ☜

Major trends:

a Decline of W1: 28 > 18%a Increase in W2 verbs: regular derivations, loans (not shown)a Increase in W1/W2 variation, particularly since EModFris

a A relatively stable proportion of strong verbs, but with internalfluctuations

Major trends:

a Decline of W1: 28 > 18%

a Increase in W2 verbs: regular derivations, loans (not shown)a Increase in W1/W2 variation, particularly since EModFris

Major trends:

a Decline of W1: 28 > 18%a Increase in W2 verbs: regular derivations, loans (not shown)

a Increase in W1/W2 variation, particularly since EModFris

Major trends:

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemDevelopments in weak classes

Relatively stable: both Old Frisian weak classes are preserved

On the whole, W2 is more productive when it comes to new verbs

a e.g. the highly recognisable -earje class eventually settled in W2, afterinitial variation

a Over 150 such verbs in Old/Middle Frisian, mostly administrativelanguage

Increasing phonological distribution between W1 and W2 since EarlyModern Frisian:

existing verb, together creating a new verb. These verbs will not get their infinitival ending

from a synchronic phonological feature, but they will keep the ending the existing verb

already had. All 55 -earje verbs were also excluded from the analysis. We want to emphasize

that the forms we use here come from the dictionary. It is possible – even likely – that there is

variation between the dictionary and the forms used by individual speakers, or between

speakers.

The database of contemporary modern verbs contained an equal distribution of -je and

-e verbs: 75 -je verbs and 81 -e verbs. To be able to test the four hypotheses formulated

above, we need to specify the phonological and syllabic structures of all verbs included in the

analysis. For this we used the same categories used in the previous section, repeated below.

(6) Simple ≤ C

Complex > C

The results of the phonological analysis are shown below in table 8.

Monosyllabic

77 – 49%

Simple

56 – 73%

-je: 6 – 11%

-e: 50 – 89%

Complex

21 – 27%

-je: 9 – 43%

-e: 12 – 57%

Polysyllabic

79 – 51%

Simple

33 – 42%

-je: 14 – 42%

-e: 19 – 58%

Complex

46 – 58%

-je: 46 – 100%

-e: 0 – 0%

Table 8: Phonological structures of the novel verbs.

2.1 Hypothesis 1: polysyllabic -je and monosyllabic -e

This hypothesis implies that all polysyllabic verbs end in -je and all monosyllabic verbs end in

-e. Table 9 shows that the polysyllabic verbs do have a clear preference for having an

infinitival ending in -je, a feature that was also observed among the early modern Frisian

verbs. Also here, Pearson’s chi-square test was significant (χ²(1) = 47.57, P < 0.0001).

(Versloot & Zeijlstra, ms. — based on 156 new verbs)

Increasing phonological distribution between W1 and W2 since EarlyModern Frisian:

existing verb, together creating a new verb. These verbs will not get their infinitival ending

from a synchronic phonological feature, but they will keep the ending the existing verb

already had. All 55 -earje verbs were also excluded from the analysis. We want to emphasize

that the forms we use here come from the dictionary. It is possible – even likely – that there is

variation between the dictionary and the forms used by individual speakers, or between

speakers.

The database of contemporary modern verbs contained an equal distribution of -je and

-e verbs: 75 -je verbs and 81 -e verbs. To be able to test the four hypotheses formulated

above, we need to specify the phonological and syllabic structures of all verbs included in the

analysis. For this we used the same categories used in the previous section, repeated below.

(6) Simple ≤ C

Complex > C

The results of the phonological analysis are shown below in table 8.

Monosyllabic

77 – 49%

Simple

56 – 73%

-je: 6 – 11%

-e: 50 – 89%

Complex

21 – 27%

-je: 9 – 43%

-e: 12 – 57%

Polysyllabic

79 – 51%

Simple

33 – 42%

-je: 14 – 42%

-e: 19 – 58%

Complex

46 – 58%

-je: 46 – 100%

-e: 0 – 0%

Table 8: Phonological structures of the novel verbs.

2.1 Hypothesis 1: polysyllabic -je and monosyllabic -e

This hypothesis implies that all polysyllabic verbs end in -je and all monosyllabic verbs end in

-e. Table 9 shows that the polysyllabic verbs do have a clear preference for having an

infinitival ending in -je, a feature that was also observed among the early modern Frisian

verbs. Also here, Pearson’s chi-square test was significant (χ²(1) = 47.57, P < 0.0001).

(Versloot & Zeijlstra, ms. — based on 156 new verbs)

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemDevelopments in strong classes: S1

Split of Strong class 1:

pres. pret.sg. pret.pl. pret.ptc.PGmc +CeiC- +CaiC- +CiC- +CiC

S1 OFris rīda rēd ridden ridden ‘ride’

PGmc +Ceib- +Caib- +Cib- +CibS1b OWFris skriuwa skrēf skriouwen skriouw(e)n ‘write’

Class S1(a) gradually declined over the centuries — though not as much asmost strong microclasses (OFris: 35 verbs, ModFris: 24 verbs)

Class S1b, however, has been moderately productive:

a 5 verbs in OWFris, but 10 in ModFris: bliuwe, driuwe, (kleauwe,) kliuwe,priuwe, riuwe, skriuwe, triuwe, wiuwe, wriuwe

a 5 verbs in OWFris, but 10 in ModFris:

bliuwe, driuwe, (kleauwe,) kliuwe,priuwe, riuwe, skriuwe, triuwe, wiuwe, wriuwe

Class composition of the Frisian verb systemDevelopments in strong classes: “assibilation class”

The assibilation of past participles in several strong classes has given rise toa new microclass of strong verbs

Origin: stems ending in /-k/ + participle suffix +-ina-+sprek-ina- > spritzen

Most of these are S5 verbs with stem /-ek/: sprekke – sprutsen ‘speak’, brekke –brutsen ‘break’

☞ Some of these forms do not survive in ModFris, e.g. +baka – batzen‘bake’.

Little is left of the original S5 class, except for these assibilating verbs

In Modern Frisian, there are 8 assibilating S5 verbs, plus 3 from other strongclasses: brekke, dekke, rekke, sprekke, stekke, strekke, trekke, wreke + like, strike, lûke

Minimally productive: originally weak dekke ‘thatch’ joined this class

In Modern Frisian, there are 8 assibilating S5 verbs, plus 3 from other strongclasses:

brekke, dekke, rekke, sprekke, stekke, strekke, trekke, wreke + like, strike, lûke

Strong class 2 has also disintegrated:

S2a — expected pattern ie – ea – e/ea — has fallen apart into a few smallergroups.

S2b — besides expected û/u – ea – e/ea — has some verbs with the ModFrispattern û – oe – û, e.g. rûke, slûpe, dûke)

a Participle vowel change from ABC to ABA happens more often inGermanic languages

a Origin of preterite vowel oe is unclear, however

Analogical modellingMethodology

Diachronic dataset Old Frisian to Modern Frisian

Sources: Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch, Taaldatabank Frysk, WFT

Two analogical models were used to predict the outcomes (past tenseinflections) of all the verbs in my dataset: Analogical Modeling (Skousen 1989)and Minimal Generalization Learner (Albright &Hayes 2002)

Analogical modellingMethodology

Diachronic dataset Old Frisian to Modern Frisian

Sources: Altfriesisches Handwörterbuch, Taaldatabank Frysk, WFT

Two analogical models were used to predict the outcomes (past tenseinflections) of all the verbs in my dataset: Analogical Modeling (Skousen 1989)and Minimal Generalization Learner (Albright &Hayes 2002)

Analogical modellingAll verbs vs Changes only

42,68%

57,93%

55,06%

58,80%

37,31%

38,86%

61,55%

77,42%

67,80%

75,78%

60,04%

72,17%

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9

All verbs

Changes only

Analogical modellingChanges: S>W, S>S, S disappears

34,09%

16,67%

52,27%

25,00%

35,29%

60,00%

33,33%

35,29%

20,00%

26,83%

50,00%

29,27%

0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7

OFris > ModFris MGL

OFris > ModFris AM

EModFris > ModFris MGL

EModFris > ModFris AM

OFris > EModFris MGL

OFris > EModFris AM

Analogical modellingChanges: W>S, W>W,W disappears

46,51%

49,21%

66,67%

37,21%

85,71%

33,33%

44,44%

63,16%

52,94%

30,56%

77,44%

50,00%

35,71%

44,26%

63,64%

35,71%

52,46%

54,55%

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

OFris > ModFris MGL

OFris > ModFris AM

EModFris > ModFris MGL

EModFris > ModFris AM

OFris > EModFris MGL

OFris > EModFris AM

Conclusions

a Modelling in two steps gives better results than one step modelling,particularly when modelling changes

a Changes from one weak class to another were predicted best

a Token frequency influence: analysis postponed (Early 2015)

☞ I’d be glad to provide more details where necessary. See my upcomingthesis (Strik 2015)

Conclusions

References

Albright A&Hayes B (2002). “Modeling English past tense intuitions with MinimalGeneralization”.http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/AlbrightHayes02.pdf

Skousen R (1989). Analogical Modeling of Language. Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer.

Strik O (2015). Modelling Analogical Change. A History of Swedish and Frisian Verb Inflection.PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

Versloot A P& Zeijlstra (manuscript). “Emerging rules: phonological analogiesamong regular verb classes in Frisian”.

Contact

[email protected] @qwallath

http://rug.academia.edu/oscarstrik

The Evolution of Frisian Verb Inflection

Documents

Transcript of The Evolution of Frisian Verb Inflection