Connectivity, Not Frequency, Determines the Fate of a Morpheme

Morphemes are the smallest meaningful parts of words and therefore represent a natural unit to study the evolution of words. To analyze the influence of language change on morphemes, we performed a large scale analysis of German and English vocabulary covering the last 200 years. Using a network app...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 8; no. 7; p. e69945
Main Authors Keller, Daniela Barbara, Schultz, Jörg
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 29.07.2013
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0069945

Cover

More Information
Summary:Morphemes are the smallest meaningful parts of words and therefore represent a natural unit to study the evolution of words. To analyze the influence of language change on morphemes, we performed a large scale analysis of German and English vocabulary covering the last 200 years. Using a network approach from bioinformatics, we examined the historical dynamics of morphemes, the fixation of new morphemes and the emergence of words containing existing morphemes. We found that these processes are driven mainly by the number of different direct neighbors of a morpheme in words (connectivity, an equivalent to family size or type frequency) and not its frequency of usage (equivalent to token frequency). This contrasts words, whose survival is determined by their frequency of usage. We therefore identified features of morphemes which are not dictated by the statistical properties of words. As morphemes are also relevant for the mental representation of words, this result might enable establishing a link between an individual's perception of language and historical language change.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Conceived and designed the experiments: DBK JS. Performed the experiments: DBK. Analyzed the data: DBK. Wrote the paper: DBK JS.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0069945