Thunk: the cognitive processes behind language change
Thunk: los procesos cognitivos detrás de cambio en el lenguaje
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v6i4.4543Palabras clave:
cognitive linguistics, analogy, automatization, corpus linguistics, language changeResumen
This study investigates the cognitive processes underlying the emergence and usage of thunk as a non-standard past participle and, less frequently, past tense form of think in present-day English. A corpus-based qualitative approach was adopted, and data were drawn from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). A total of 71 relevant instances were identified, analyzed for diachronic development, frequency, and contextual distribution. Findings reveal that while thunk historically appeared in both past simple and participial contexts, its modern usage is restricted to the would have + participle and woulda + participle constructions, especially in colloquial expressions such as Who would have thunk…?. As a result, the analysis considers three cognitive mechanisms (categorization, analogy, and automatization) as potential explanations for this shift. Categorization links think to phonologically similar strong verbs (e.g., drink – drunk), which enables analogical innovation. However, evidence from corpus data suggests that automatization, driven by high-frequency co-occurrence and phonetic reduction in predictable contexts, plays a central role in the entrenchment of thunk. These findings highlight the importance of usage-based processes in language change and suggest that thunk’s persistence is shaped more by routinized discourse patterns than by systematic morphological reanalysis. Future research should explore phonetic realizations in spontaneous speech and constructional frameworks to assess its integration into contemporary English.Descargas
Citas
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology: approaches in modern linguistics (pp. 119-141). Academic Press.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and cognitive processes, 10(5), 425-455.
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2003). Cognitive processes in gramaticalization. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Vol. 2, pp. 145-167). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Bybee, J. (2012). Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In M. Tallerman & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (pp. 528-536). Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J., & Beckner, C. (2015). Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change. In C. Bowern & B. Evans (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 503-518). Routledge.
Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
Davies, M. (2010-) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810-2009. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/
De Smet, H., & Fischer, O. (2016). The role of analogy in language change: supporting constructions. In M. Hundt, S. Mollin, & S. Pfenninger (Eds.), The changing English language: Psycolinguistic perspectives (pp. 240-268). Cambrige University Press.
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New ideas in psychology, 25(2), 108-127. http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~x4diho/Frequency%20effects.pdf
Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Houghton Mifflin.
Gahl, S., and Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748-775.
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219-224.
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Understanding Morphology. Arnold.
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Frequency vs. Iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics, 19(1), 1-33.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (Ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, (pp. 96-105). North-Holland.
Kiparsky, P. (1995). Explanation in Phonology. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 640-670). Blackwell.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
Lindblom, B., MacNeilage, P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1984). Self-organizing processes and the explanation of language universals. In G. Butterworth, B. Comrie, & Ö. Dahl (Eds.), Explanations for language universals (pp. 181-203). Walter de Gruyter.
McColl Millar, R., & Trask, L. (2015). Trask's Historical Linguistics (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Key to frequency: calculating frequency. Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://public.oed.com/how-to-use-the-oed/key-to- frequency/
Oxford University Press. (n.d.) Thunk. Oxford English Dictionary Online. http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=thunk&_searchBtn =Search
Pisoni, D. B., Nusbaum, H. C., Luce, P. A., & Slowiaczek, L. M. (1985). Speech Perception, Word Recognition and the Structure of the Lexicon. Speech Communication, 4(1-3), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(85)90037-8
Saussure, F. (1986). Course in General Linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.; R. Harris, Trans.). Open Court. (Original work published 1916).
Taylor, J. R. (2012). The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford University Press.
Wang, X. (2010). Language Iconicity from Sociolinguistic Perspective. Asian Social Science, 6(7), 176-179.
