Analogy, Borrowing, and Lexical Diffusion

Abstract

Exceptions to sound changes have often been “explained” by reference to borrowing or analogy. In their introduction to The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Janda and Joseph (2003a: 115), in fact, justify their failure to accord lexical diffusion a discussion of its own on the grounds that “diffusionary effects in the spread of phonological change through the lexicons of speakers…are actually epiphenomenal, being the result of already-needed mechanisms of analogical change and dialect borrowing.” Such opinions are shared by such linguists as Hale (2003: 356), who sees “apparent” lexical diffusion as borrowing between dialects, and Kiparsky (1995: 647–51), who conflates analogy and lexical diffusion. Analogy and borrowing, however, are not sufficient to account for the behavior of lexically diffused changes, and the purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate why lexical diffusion must be an independent phenomenon. In particular, that borrowing and traditional notions of analogy are not commensurate with lexical diffusion will be shown by the fact that changes typically labeled as either borrowing or analogy can be diffused lexically in very different word frequency patterns. Thus, neither an appeal to borrowing nor to analogy can account for the lexical progression of a change.