Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:04:56.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analogy in inflectional change: Modification or whole-word replacement?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Eugen Hill
Eugen Hill*
Affiliation:
Universität zu Köln
*
[eugen.hill@uni-koeln.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With regard to change in inflection, historical linguistics fundamentally relies on the concept of morphological analogy, which is held responsible for nearly all change not attributable to phonological factors. Despite its central importance, how morphological analogy operates has never been established. Two different opinions are held in contemporary linguistics. The first position assumes that morphological analogy modifies inherited inflectional forms, making them more similar to other inflectional forms. According to the second position, in the course of morphological analogy, inherited inflectional forms are not merely modified but rather are replaced by forms created entirely anew on a model pattern already present in the grammar. This research report tries to establish what kind of data may constitute the evidence sufficient to differentiate between the two views. It argues that all relevant data point to whole-word replacement as the only mechanism of analogical change in inflection.

Keywords

morphologyinflectioninflectional changemorphological analogyparadigmatic leveling

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. e38 - e58
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ainsworth, Zeprina-Jaz. 2019. The Veps illative: The applicability of an abstractive approach to an agglutinative language. Transactions of the Philological Society 117(1). 58–78. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12142.10.1111/1467-968X.12142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good, 144–81. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0007.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0007.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0007.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2009. Modeling analogy as probabilistic grammar. Analogy in grammar: Form and aquisition, ed. by Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 125–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0009.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2009. Noget om analogi. Dramatikken i grammatikken: Festskift for Lars Heltoft, ed. by Therkelsen, Rita and Jensen, Eva S., 15–25. Roskilde: Roskilde Universitet.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2015. Review of Fertig 2013. Diachronica 32(1). 115–20. DOI: 10.1075/dia.32.1.05and.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew (ed.) 2015. The Oxford handbook of inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred. 2004. Lithuanian esmì and esù ‘I am’: On the spread of the thematic present paradigm in Indo-European languages. Studies in Baltic and Indo-European linguistics in honor of William R. Schmalstieg, ed. by Baldi, Philip and Dini, Pietro U., 19–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek, vols. 1–2. With the assistance of Lucien van Beek. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Beito, Olav T. 1970. Nynorsk grammatikk: Lyd- og ordlære. Olso: Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79(4). 737–67. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2003.0206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–73. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226706004191.10.1017/S0022226706004191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2015. Inflectional paradigms. In Baerman, 87–111. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.5.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.5.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.5.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593545.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, and Heidermanns, Frank. 2004. Gotische Grammatik mit Lesenstücken und Wortverzeichnis. 20th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, and Reiffenstein, Ingo. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I: Laut- und Formenlehre. 15th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110930887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. The lexicalist hypothesis: Both wrong and superfluous. Language 94(1). 1–42. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0000.10.1353/lan.2018.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brøndum-Nielsen, Johannes. 1971. Gammeldansk grammatik i sproghistorisk fremstilling, vol. 7: De svage verber. De præteritopræsentiske verber. With the help of Karl M. Nielsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk.Google Scholar
Burani, Cristina, and Thornton, Anna M.. 2003. The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. Morphological structure in language processing, ed. by Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 157–208. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110910186.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical linguistics: An introduction. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chantraine, Pierre, and Casevitz, Michel. 2013. Grammaire homérique, vol. 1: Phonétique et morphologie. Rev. and corrected edn. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Cleasby, Richard, and Vigfusson, Gudbrand. 1957. An Icelandic-English dictionary. 2nd edn., revised, enlarged, and completed by Vigfusson. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Coates, Richard. 2000. Exponence. Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, vol. 1, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, 616–30. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Danylenko, Andrii. 2010. Is there any inflectional future in East Slavic? A case of Ukrainian against Romance reopened. Grammaticalization in Slavic languages: From areal and typological perspectives, ed. by Nomachi, Motoki, 147–77. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar
Egilsson, Sveinbjörn. 1966. Lexicon poeticum antiquae linguae septentrionalis—Ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog. 2nd edn. Ed. by Finnur Jónsson. Copenhagen: Atlas Bogtryk.Google Scholar
Einarsson, Stefán. 1949. Icelandic: Grammar, texts, glossary. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Endzelin, J. 1923. Lettische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jānis, Endzelīns. 1971. Comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. Trans. by William R. Schmalstieg and Benjamiņš Jēgers. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748646234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2016. Mechanisms of paradigm leveling and the role of universal preferences in morphological change. Diachronica 33(4). 423–60. DOI: 10.1075/dia.33.4.01fer.10.1075/dia.33.4.01ferCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2008. Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good, 125–43. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0006.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfrēds, Gāters. 1977. Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff (ed.) 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The growth of affixes in morphological reanalysis. Yearbook of Morphology 1994. 1–29. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3714-2_1.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7). 342–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002.10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, Eugen. 2007. Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formerweiterung: Ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica 24(1). 81–118. DOI: 10.1075/dia.24.1.05hil.10.1075/dia.24.1.05hilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Eugen. 2010. A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology: Origin and development of the Germanic weak preterite. Diachronica 27(3). 411–58. DOI: 10.1075/dia.27.3.02hil.10.1075/dia.27.3.02hilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinge, George. 2006. Die Sprache Alkmans: Textgeschichte und Sprachgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J., and Lehiste, Ilse. 1979. Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1956. A Modern English grammar on historical principles, part 6: Morphology. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1967. Russische historische Grammatik, vol. 2: Die Entwicklung des Formensystems. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2010. Parallel system borrowing: Parallel morphological systems due to the borrowing of paradigms. Diachronica 27(3). 459–87. DOI: 10.1075/dia.27.3.03kos.10.1075/dia.27.3.03kosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten. 2015. Contact-induced change. In Baerman, 251–71. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.11.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.11.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.11.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. Munich: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Sherman M., and Reidy, John. 1975. Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1964. An introduction to Modern Faroese. 2nd printing. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Matzel, Klaus. 1987a. Zu den verba pura des Germanischen. I. Teil: Vorbemerkungen und Bestandsaufnahme. Historische Sprachforschung 100. 145–203. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40848869.Google Scholar
Matzel, Klaus. 1987b. Zu den verba pura des Germanischen. II. Teil: Der Sonderstatus der verba pura des Althochdeutschen. Althochdeutsch, vol. I: Grammatik. Glossen und Texte, ed. by Bergmann, Rolf, Tiefenbach, Heinrich, and Voetz, Lothar, 201–21. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nedoma, Robert. 2006. Kleine Grammatik des Altisländischen. 2nd edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Noreen, A. 1904. Altnordische Grammatik II: Altschwedische Grammatik mit Einschluss des Altgutnischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Noreen, A. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. 4th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung: Eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110915082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED. 1961 = The Oxford English dictionary. Vol. VI: L–M. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2019. Direct copying of inflectional paradigms: Evidence from Lamunkhin Even. Language 95(3). e364–e380. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0063.10.1353/lan.2019.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann, Klein, Thomas, Solms, Hans-Joachim; and Wegera, Klaus-Peter. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Ullman, Michael T.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11). 456–63. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(1). 1–56. DOI: 10.1080/01690969308406948.10.1080/01690969308406948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichmann, Oskar, and Wegera, Klaus-Peter. 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don, and Eska, Joseph F.. 2013. Historical linguistics: Toward a twenty-first century reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511980183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut. 1992. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. 2nd corrected edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Rudzīte, Marta. 1964. Latviešu dialektoloģija. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevnieciba.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2015. Direct and indirect affix borrowing. Language 91(3). 511–32. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0044.10.1353/lan.2015.0044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2017. Patterns of affix borrowing in a sample of 100 languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7(3). 389–431. DOI: 10.1075/jhl.16002.sei.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seip, Didrik A. 1971. Norwegische Sprachgeschichte. Revised by Laurits Saltveit. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110833539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, vol. 1: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Sereno, Joan A., and Jongman, Allard. 1997. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition 25(4). 425–37. DOI: 10.3758/BF03201119.10.3758/BF03201119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sims-Williams, Helen. 2016. Analogical levelling and optimisation: The treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(3). 315–38. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12078.10.1111/1467-968X.12078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, Chr. S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael A.. 2013. Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139248860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1970. Schwedische Sprachgeschichte, vol. 1: Laut- und Flexionslehre. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willi, Andreas. 2018. Origins of the Greek verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108164207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1996. The history of the Lithuanian language. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie. 2009. Frequency influences on rule application within and across words. Chicago Linguistic Society 43(2). 283–309.Google Scholar