Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T06:50:23.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From unit-and-ten to ten-before-unit order in the history of English numerals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2014

Thomas Berg  and
Marion Neubauer
Thomas Berg
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Marion Neubauer
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the course of its history, English underwent a significant structural change in its numeral system. The number words from 21 to 99 switched from the unit-and-ten to the ten-before-unit pattern. This change is traced on the basis of more than 800 number words. It is argued that this change, which took seven centuries to complete and in which the Old English pattern was highly persistent, can be broken down into two parts—the reordering of the units and tens and the loss of the conjoining element. Although the two steps logically belong to the same overall change, they display a remarkably disparate behavior. Whereas the reordering process affected the least frequent number words first, the deletion process affected the most frequent words first. This disparity lends support to the hypothesis that the involvement or otherwise of low-level aspects of speech determines the role of frequency in language change (Phillips, 2006). Finally, the order change is likely to be a contact-induced phenomenon and may have been facilitated by a reduction in mental cost.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 21 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Behaghel, Otto. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25:110–142.Google Scholar
Blanken, Gerhard, Dorn, M., & Sinn, H. (1997). Inversion errors in Arabic number reading: Is there a nonsemantic route? Brain and Cognition 34:404–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph, & Toller, Northcote T. (1898). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. (1967). Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bremmer, Rolf H. (2009). An introduction to Old Frisian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunner, Karl. (1953). Abriss der altenglischen (angelsächsischen) Grammatik von Eduard Sievers. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. (1962). Die englische Sprache. Band II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. (1967). Abriss der mittelenglischen Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Fias, Wim, & Noël, Marie-Pascale. (1998). The Whorfian hypothesis and numerical cognition: Is ‘twenty-four’ processed in the same way as ‘four-and-twenty’? Cognition 66:51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnley, David. (1992). Lexis and semantics. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 409–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. (1959). Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., & Devlin, Joseph T. (1997). Recursive inconsistencies are hard to learn: A connectionist perspective on universal word order correlations. In Shafto, M. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 113–118.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E., & Ross, John Robert. (1975). World order. In Grossman, R. E., James San, L., & Vance, T. J. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 63–111.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul, & Legendre, Géraldine. (2012). Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122:306–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehaene, Stanislas, & Mehler, Jacques. (1992). Cross-linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition 43:1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, Olga. (2000). Grammaticalization: Unidirectional, non-reversible? In Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., & Stein, D. (eds.), Pathways of change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, David. (2001). Quantifiers. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Österreicher, W., & Raible, W. (eds.), Language typology and language universals. Vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1275–1294.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). Language universals. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.. (1978). Generalizations about number systems. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A., & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Word structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 249–295.Google Scholar
Haugen, Odd Einar. (2013). Norröne Grammatik im Überblick. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion as the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. M. Jr. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland. 95–105.Google Scholar
Kibler, William W. (1984). An introduction to Old French. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. (1981). Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. (1970). Spoonerisms: The structure of errors in the serial order of speech. Neuropsychologia 8:323–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Means, Laurel. (1992). “Ffor as moche as yche man may not haue þe astrolabe”: Popular Middle English variations on the computus. Speculum 67:595–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menninger, Karl. (1958). Zahlwort und Ziffer. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Zahl. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nohara, Yasuhiro. (1995). The numerals in Chaucer [in Japanese]. English Review 10:41–65.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. (1903). Altisländische und altnordische Grammatik: Unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Öfverberg, William. (1924). The inflections of the East Midland dialects in early Middle English. Lund: Håkan Ohlsson.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin D., & Meade, Andrew. (2007). Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449:717–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, Betty S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60:320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S.. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1916). A grammar of late Modern English. Part II: The parts of speech. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quak, A., & van der Horst, J. M. (2002). Inleiding Oudnederlands. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, & Wrenn, C. L. (1957). An Old English grammar. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7:149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, Hans-Friedrich. (1956/57). Die germanischen Zahlwörter von 70–90 und die Entwicklung des Aufbaus der germanischen Zahlwörter. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Ernst Moritz Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe No. 3, 6.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. (1990). A dimensional view on numeral systems. In Croft, W., Denning, K., & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Studies in typology and diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampe, David. (1976). Cardinal number systems. In Mufwene, S. S., Walker, C. A., & Steever, S. B. (eds.), Papers from the annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 12:594–609.Google Scholar
Tietjens, Eugenie. (1922). Englische Zahlwörter des 15./16. Jahrhunderts. Langensalza: Julius Betz.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. (1991). Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. In Kastovsky, D. (ed.), Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 439–467.Google Scholar
van Kerckvoorde, Colette M. (1993). An introduction to Middle Dutch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand. (2010). Cardinal numerals. Old English from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wülfing, J. Ernst. (1894). Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Großen. Bonn: P. Hanstein.Google Scholar