Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative?
Abstract
While it is widely assumed that high-frequency morphologically complex forms tend to display characteristics of noncompositionality, models of morphological processing do not predict a direct relationship between absolute frequency and decomposition. Rather, they predict a relationship between decomposition and the relative frequency of the derived form and the base. This paper argues that such a relative frequency effect does, indeed, exist. First, the results of a simple experiment demonstrate that subjects perceive derived forms that are more frequent than their bases to be significantly less complex than matched counterparts that are less frequent than their bases. And second, dictionary calculations reveal that derived forms that are more frequent than their bases are significantly more likely to display symptoms of semantic drift than derived forms containing higher-frequency bases. High-frequency forms, however, are no more prone to semantic drift than low-frequency forms. These results provide evidence that it is relative frequency, rather than absolute frequency, that affects the decomposability of morphologically complex words A low-frequency form is likely to be nontransparent if it is composed of even-lower-frequency parts. And a high-frequency form may be highly decomposable if the base word it contains is higher frequency still.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reliability influences language change and accuracy and error patterns in L1 and L2 processing and acquisition.
“Reliability has been shown to influence language change (Bybee, 1985) as well as accuracy and error patterns in L1 (N. C. Ellis, O'Donnell, & Römer, 2014;Hay, 2001;Matthews & Theakston, 2006;Tatsumi et al., 2018) and L2 processing and acquisition (N.C. Ellis et al., 2014;Sugaya & Shirai, 2009).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Hay, 2001
In L1 acquisition, the relative frequency of different forms of the same word predicts usage and error patterns in morpheme acquisition.
“We have already described how, in L1 acquisition, the relative frequency of different forms of the same word have been found to predict the usage and error patterns in morpheme acquisition (Bybee, 1985;Hay, 2001;Matthews & Theakston, 2006).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Hay, 2001
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 581
- Authors
- Hay, J.
- Corresponding author
- Hay, Jennifer
- ORCID
- Hay, Jennifer
- Venue
- Linguistics
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2001-01-05
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 0024-3949 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-396X
- OpenAlex
- W2100881784
- Cited by
- 581
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 107
- FWCI
- 60.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Studies
- Keywords
- word frequency, morphological complexity, morphological decomposition, relative frequency, semantic drift, morphological processing, derived words, morphological transparency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review