Who’s afraid of homophones? A multimethodological approach to homophony avoidance

IF 1.1 3区 心理学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language and Cognition Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.1017/langcog.2023.50
Isabeau De Smet, Laura Rosseel
{"title":"Who’s afraid of homophones? A multimethodological approach to homophony avoidance","authors":"Isabeau De Smet, Laura Rosseel","doi":"10.1017/langcog.2023.50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Homophony avoidance has often been claimed to be a mechanism of language change. We investigate this mechanism in Dutch by applying two strands of research – corpus studies and experimental data – to find support for claims based on earlier historical observations. Throughout the history of Dutch, homophony avoidance has been named as the cause of language change or inhibition of change on several occasions. We build on these historical observations with an experimental study and a corpus study on a synchronic Dutch alternation, where avoidance of homophony between present and past tense can appear. Plurals of verbs with a stem ending in a dental show homophony with the present when they are used in the preterite (compare <jats:italic>zetten</jats:italic> ‘put’ <jats:sc>pst</jats:sc>-<jats:sc>pl</jats:sc> with <jats:italic>zetten</jats:italic> ‘put’ <jats:sc>prs</jats:sc>-<jats:sc>pl</jats:sc>). This homophony can be avoided by using the perfectum (<jats:italic>hebben gezet</jats:italic> ‘have put’). A wug-style experiment shows that verbs with dental stem are indeed used significantly more in the perfectum in the plural than in the singular, while verbs without dental stem do not show this difference. A corpus study on Dutch further corroborates these results. Combined, these studies make a strong case for homophony avoidance as a plausible mechanism of language change.","PeriodicalId":45880,"journal":{"name":"Language and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2023.50","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Homophony avoidance has often been claimed to be a mechanism of language change. We investigate this mechanism in Dutch by applying two strands of research – corpus studies and experimental data – to find support for claims based on earlier historical observations. Throughout the history of Dutch, homophony avoidance has been named as the cause of language change or inhibition of change on several occasions. We build on these historical observations with an experimental study and a corpus study on a synchronic Dutch alternation, where avoidance of homophony between present and past tense can appear. Plurals of verbs with a stem ending in a dental show homophony with the present when they are used in the preterite (compare zetten ‘put’ pst-pl with zetten ‘put’ prs-pl). This homophony can be avoided by using the perfectum (hebben gezet ‘have put’). A wug-style experiment shows that verbs with dental stem are indeed used significantly more in the perfectum in the plural than in the singular, while verbs without dental stem do not show this difference. A corpus study on Dutch further corroborates these results. Combined, these studies make a strong case for homophony avoidance as a plausible mechanism of language change.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁害怕同音字?同音字回避的多方法研究
避免同音经常被认为是语言变化的一种机制。我们运用语料库研究和实验数据这两种研究方法,对荷兰语中的这一机制进行了研究,以寻求对基于早期历史观察的说法的支持。纵观荷兰语的历史,同音异义回避曾多次被称为语言变化或抑制语言变化的原因。在这些历史观察的基础上,我们对荷兰语的同步交替进行了实验研究和语料库研究,发现了现在时和过去时之间的同音回避现象。以齿音结尾的动词复数在用于过去时时(比较 zetten 'put' pst-pl 和 zetten 'put' prs-pl),会出现与现在时的同音现象。使用完成时可以避免这种同音现象(hebben gezet 'have put')。一个 wug 式实验表明,有齿干的动词在复数中使用完成时确实比单数中多,而没有齿干的动词则没有这种差别。荷兰语语料库研究进一步证实了这些结果。综合上述研究,这些研究有力地证明了避免同音是语言变化的一种合理机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Multimodal training on L2 Japanese pitch accent: learning outcomes, neural correlates and subjective assessments Head metonymies and metaphors in Jordanian and Tunisian Arabic: an extended conceptual metaphor theory perspective Facial expressions in different communication settings: A case of whispering and speaking with a face mask in Farsi The effect of emotional prosody and referent characteristics on novel noun learning Inherent linguistic preference outcompetes incidental alignment in cooperative partner choice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1