The Functional Nature of Pronominal Change: Innovative Plural Pronouns in English and Dutch

Abstract

At least since Gilliéron's seminal work on lexical change, it is wellknown that language change may be motivated by factors relating to the meaning and/or function of the elements involved. In more recent times, however, such functional accounts of language change have generally met with criticism. More specifically, there is disagreement as to whether grammar really is subject to processes of homonymy avoidance. This paper discusses examples of pronominal change from English and Dutch, in which new plural forms are formed which are, historically, compounds of a traditional pronoun and an element marking plurality (e.g. you guys in English, jij lieden or jullie in Dutch). Such innovative pronouns typically emerge in contact varieties, as reinforced pronouns or calques, and they appear to spread much more easily wherever they fill a disturbing gap in the pronominal paradigm, viz. in situations of so-called 'horizontal homophony'. Thus, homonymy avoidance has played a crucial role in the processes by which innovative plural pronouns have diffused. This shows that pronominal change qualifies as a clear exception to the alleged rarity of functionally motivated change in grammar.

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

“…Steering away from the phonological domain, we also find a few studies that show an effect of homophony avoidance in morphology. De Vogelaer and Coussé (2011) show, in a corpus study, how homophony avoidance played a crucial role in the evolution of Dutch and English plural pronouns (you guys versus original you 2/ in English and jij lieden 'you guys' or jullie 'you' 2 versus original jij or gij 'you' 2/  in Dutch). Also, in a corpus study, Holtz (2021) shows that when TD deletion (deletion of t/d after a consonant at the end of a word) in words in US English would result in higher levels of homophony (even for words that are not related), this deletion was less likely to apply.…”

“…That is why, in Sections 3 and 4, we now turn to a potential case of language variation driven by homophony avoidance in present-day Dutch. A case study of this type will allow us to collect experimental data and directly compare that to contemporary corpus data, which offers the opportunity to assess the plausibility of homophony avoidance as a mechanism of language variation and change in the Dutch past tense system but also to contribute to the growing body of evidence documenting the plausibility of homophony avoidance as a mechanism in language change (De Vogelaer & Coussé, 2011;Holtz, 2021;Kaplan & Muratani, 2015;Silverman, 2010;Wedel et al, 2013;Yin & White, 2018).…”

“…In response to Lass' criticism, it has been argued that homophony avoidance need not be a teleological mechanism (Blevins & Wedel, 2009;De Vogelaer & Coussé, 2011). Labov (1994, pp.…”

A corpus-based quantitative analysis of twelve centuries of preterite and past participle morphology in Dutch

“…Although we just adduced reasons to hypothesize that homophonous forms can attract a verb to the weak inflection by an analogical pull at the formal level, in other cases language users avoid homonymy (Gilliéron & Roques, 1912). Though homonymy avoidance has met skepticism in historical linguistic literature (e.g., Lass, 1997:355–61), its effects are supported by several observations in the history of Dutch verbal morphology and elsewhere (Baerman, 2011; De Clerck & Vanopstal, 2015:364; De Vogelaer & Coussé, 2011). When presents and preterites might formally merge due to sound change, language users appear to maintain the distinction.…”