《Word frequency and lexical diffusion 2006》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Word frequency and lexical diffusion 2006（267页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、A : Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion (Palgrave Studies in Language History and Language Change) (9781403932327): Betty S. Phillips Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion (Palgrave Studies in Language History and Language Change) Close Window each fact is isolated, independent of the other events o
2、f the same class, independent also of the words in which the change took place. The phonic substance of all the words was of course, modi- fied, but this should not deceive us as to the real nature of the phenomenon.2 Saussure elaborated by comparing words to a melody and phonemes to an instrument,
3、such as a piano, which plays those sounds: “Our system of phonemes is the instrument we play in order to articulate the words of language; if one of its elements is modified, diverse consequences may ensue, but the modification itself is not concerned with the words which are, in a manner of speakin
4、g, the melodies of our repertory” (p. 94).3 Saussure s position influenced all structuralists who followed him, and foreshadowed modern modularist theories of language, that is, those that include an autonomous phonology. As Bakken (2001: 67) puts it, “A phonetically regular process is characterized
5、 by general productivity, and such productivity seems to be incompatible with lexical exceptions, i.e. lexical diffusion. Lexical diffusion and phonetic regularity are therefore truly mutually exclusive.” Labov (1994: 542), for instance, accepts lexical diffusion as a method of change only for “lexi
6、cal rules,” which substitute one phoneme for another, and not for “postlexical rules,” which are phonetically conditioned. The neogrammarian stance is also implied in Janda and Joseph s (2003a: 115) statement that “diffusionary effects in the spread of phonological change through the lexicons of spe
7、akers?are actually epiphenomenal, being the result of already-needed mechanisms of analogical change and dialect borrowing.” Thus, students within the structuralist tradi- tion of sound change still often treat exceptions to sound changes as marginal, with the primary focus of change remaining on th
8、e phonolo- gical system, not on the lexicon. Labov (1994) is certainly within this tradition. Optimality Theory also follows in this tradition by focusing on the system, and only as a reflection of universal and innate properties of language. Such a view contrasts with that adopted here, whereby sou
9、nds 10.1057/9780230286610 - Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion, Betty S. Phillips Copyright material from - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-04-24 Word Frequency and the Neogrammarian Controversy3 exist within words and the phonological system itself is epiphen
10、omenal, being an extraction from pronunciations of the words and phrases of the language. Lexical diffusion follows in the footsteps of Gilliron, and more specifically in those of Schuchardt, who observed that more frequent words tend to change first (1885: 58): The greater or lesser frequency in th
11、e use of individual words that plays such a prominent role in analogical formation is also of great importance for their phonetic transformation, not within rather small differences, but within significant ones. Rarely-used words drag behind; very frequently used ones hurry ahead. Exceptions to the
12、sound laws are formed in both groups. In a number of publications, Ma nczak has noted the influence of word frequency in and across languages (see Ma nczak 2000, 2004 for a summary and bibliographical references), and Chen (1972: 470) gives a historical overview of other linguists who hinted at the
13、lexically gradual nature of sound change: Sapir spoke of incomplete changes (1921: 180) and of how a drift “gradually worms its way through a gamut of phonetically analogous forms” (p. 178); Karlgren (1954: 229) alluded to “retarded remnants” and “belated cases” (p. 275) which could be easily identi
14、fied with “residues” in Wang s (1969) sense; while Martinet (1955: 187) speculated about “variantes synchroniques” (coexistent variants) as result sic of gradual replacement of lexical items by innovating forms. He notes that the most specific example of lexical diffusion was made by Sommerfelt (196
15、2: 75), namely, that the loss of the initial voiceless velar fricative ? (Old Welsh ch-) in some Welsh dialects first affected the word ?warec to play,then ?wanen flea,and only later?wa8ir sister. However, it was not until Wang (1969) revived the notion of change gradually spreading through the lexi
16、con that the term “lexical diffusion” was used to describe this process and to ascribe to it the status of a regular method of the implementation of sound change. As Chen and Wang (1975: 256) explain, “a phonological rule gradually extends its scope of operation to a larger and larger portion of the lexicon, until all relevant items have been transformed by the process.” Table 1.1, modified from Wang (1979: 362), gives an example of a lexically diffused sound change 10
