Strong-Verb Paradigm Leveling in Four Germanic Languages: A Category Frequency Approach

Abstract

We investigated strong-verb paradigm leveling in German, Dutch, English, and Swedish, and found significant differences in ablaut leveling and class change towards the weak conjugation. Swedish favors ablaut patterns retaining a difference between the preterite and the past participle, while German, Dutch, and English favor a common vowel for both forms. In change from the strong to the weak conjugation in Swedish, the preterite is more resistant than the past participle, while in the other languages it is the reverse. We provide a unified explanation for these facts based on differences in category frequency due to the prominence or lack of an aspectual distinction between preterite and perfect.*

Semantic differences between strong and weak verb forms in Dutch

“…This is unexpected, especially in light of Conradie's (1985: 76) research on Afrikaans where the past participles are the ones that are affected by metaphor. However, we also know from previous research (Dammel et al 2010) that past participles are more conservative. This may explain why literal past participles show less weakening than literal preterites.…”

“…We will also investigate whether this effect plays out the same way for preterites and past participles, because we know that past participles are in general more conservative in the process of weakening in Dutch. This is most likely an effect of 'Präteritumschwund', where preterites are being replaced by perfects (using past participles) to express past tense, which increases the frequency of the past participles, making them more protected from weakening (Dammel et al 2010). Furthermore, past participles can also lexicalize as adjectives and then fossilize in a certain inflection, while the verb itself might still change inflection (e.g., lexicalized strong past participle verbolgen 'angry' < verbelgen 'to become angry' vs. non-lexicalized weakened preterite belgde 'became angry'), which is not the case for preterites.…”

Klar – klärer – am klärsten? Umlaut comparison as a doubtful case in contemporary German

“…for example the extent of variation in terms of a preference for non-umlauting over umlauting forms, but also with respect to the individual grammatical categories: Are comparative and superlative forms equally affected by this variation? This question is by no means trivial considering the fact that morphological variation often affects single paradigmatic positions to a different degree, for example in the case of strong versus weak verb forms: Here, preterites are much more prone to variation than their corresponding past participles, compare historically strong verbs like NHG melken 'to milk' or backen 'to bake': melkte/molk, backte (buk) vs. gemolken (gemelkt), gebacken (gebackt) (Dammel et al 2010). This distribution can be directly linked to frequency effects making the less frequent preterite forms more sensitive to change than the frequently used past participles.…”

REVIEWS - Analogy and Morphological Change. By David Fertig. (Edinburgh Historical Linguistics). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013. Pp. viii, 160. Paperback. £24.99.

“…In this regard, it is also important to mention that token frequency (§7.5) not only makes (irregular) forms more “resistant to analogical influences” (p. 118) but also has an influence on the direction of analogical change. As Bittner 1996, Dammel et al 2010, Dammel 2011, and Nowak 2015. have shown, single strong verbs do not shift by means of a single change but rather in a series of steps.…”

“…In Swedish, however, the past tense forms are used more frequently, which is reflected in verb class change. Here, past participles become weak first (see Dammel et al 2010). The situation is even more complex if the relevance concept is also taken into consideration.…”