1 / 36

From Typology to Diachrony

This study delves into diachronic typology, examining language transitions and processes with typological insights. It explores universals of language change and variation, from states to transitions to processes, shedding light on historical linguistics through a typological lens. Discover the dynamic nature of language evolution and cross-linguistic comparability challenges.

brandonmiranda
Download Presentation

From Typology to Diachrony

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From Typology to Diachrony (based on Croft 2003)

  2. Contents • Typologically informed comparative linguistics • From states to transitions • From transitions to processes • Grammaticalization (cline) • Semantic maps

  3. Typologically informed comparative linguistics • Jakobson, Greenberg • Synchronically derived language universals should not be violated in historical • Jakobson on PIE stops (ph >> bh) • Assumption: uniformitarianism

  4. Typologically informed comparative linguistics • Absolute vs. statistical universals • Can we apply statistical observations to individual reconstructions? • Song: yes we can • After all, the task is to reconstruct probable (rather than possible) language states

  5. Reminder: transitions and population typology Maslova: type shifts as probabilities Nom Erg

  6. From states to transitions Greenberg: dynamicization of typology • typological constraints regulate language type shift, not properties of language population (Croft, Cristofaro) • connectivity hypothesis – languages of any one type may develop into languages of any other type (perhaps passing through other types)

  7. From state to transitions B A F C E D Impossible under connectivity hypothesis

  8. Frequency and stability Greenberg: Stability (out>), Frequency (>in) • Связь с генеалогической и географической дистрибуцией • genealogical concentration • geographical spread (worldwide)

  9. Frequency and stability

  10. Transitory states Predicted: * * Attested: 70 22 10 150 Prep & NG Prep & GN Post & NG Post & GN These *types must be possible! Why? (Dryer 2001, quoted by Croft)

  11. Markedness dynamicized Sg Pl Zero Zero Zero Non-Zero Non-Zero Non-Zero Non-Zero Zero

  12. Markedness dynamicized Ngandi (Heath 1978), quoted by Croft unmarked

  13. Markedness dynamicized

  14. From transitions to processes • States: • L with no articles -> L with articles • BYP…what exactly happened? • Processes: • deictic dems -> anaphoric dems -> articles

  15. From transitions to processes • “In the same way that contemporary linguistics, including typology, seeks universals of language structure, historical linguistics seeks universals of processes of language change. Diachronic typology is historical linguistics using a typological method” (p. 246) • E.g.: Каталог семантических переходов (Анна А. Зализняк et al.)

  16. From transitions to processes • “In the same way that contemporary linguistics, including typology, seeks universals of language structure, historical linguistics seeks universals of processes of language change. Diachronic typology is historical linguistics using a typological method” (p. 246) • But: what is the source of these generalizations?

  17. From transitions to processes • …language variation… • is language change in progress (Labovian) • Innovation and propagation (diffusion) in typology - Croft

  18. From transitions to processes • Intragenetic typology (Greenberg) • on assumption that the observed variation across sister languages represents different stages of change from the protolanguage Greenberg on word order in Ethiosemitic • Kibrik used intragenetic typology for synchronic functional interpretation, not diachronic explanation

  19. From transitions to processes Greenberg on word order in Ethiosemitic • Ge’ez: VSO, prep, AN, Ngen • Daughter languages vary in all, but: • Adj/N > Gen/N > Adp

  20. From transitions to processes Greenberg on word order in Ethiosemitic • Ge’ez: VSO, prep, AN, Ngen • Daughter languages (al[habetically): • SOV & AN & GN & Prep N Post (Amharic) • SOV & AN & GN & Post (Harari) • SOV & AN & GN & Prep N Post (Old Harari) • SOV/vso & AN/NA & NG & Prep (Tigre) • SOV & AN(na) & NG & Prep (Tigrinya)

  21. From transitions to processes Greenberg on word order in Ethiosemitic • Ge’ez: VSO, prep, AN, Ngen • Daughter languages: • VSO & NA & NG & Prep (Ge’ez) • SOV/vso & AN/NA & NG & Prep (Tigre) • SOV & AN(na) & NG & Prep (Tigrinya) • SOV & AN & GN & Prep N Post (Amharic) • SOV & AN & GN & Prep N Post (Old Harari) • SOV & AN & GN & Post (Harari)

  22. From transitions to processes • Cross-linguistic comparability problems of the same order as in synchronic typology • Both Greek and Spanish: *s > h But: • In Greek, the change first happened word-inititally and intervocally, and then spread • In Spanish, the change first took place in the word final and post-consonantal position and then spread • Are these two instances of the same change?

  23. From transitions to processes • Unidirectionality failure? • đ -> d and d -> đ But is this the same process? • đ -> d ~ θ -> t • d -> đ ~ g -> γ ~ b -> β Interpretation of change requires systemic context

  24. Unidirectionality vs. connectivity? • Changes are unidirectional • Transitions between language states are cyclic WTH? • Once again: • Transitions is what happens to languages • Processes is what happens to linguisticelements

  25. Грамматикализация

  26. Jespersen’s negation cycle • Stage 1: negation is expressed by one negative marker • Stage 2: negation is expressed by a negative marker in combination with a negative adverb or a noun phrase • Stage 3: the second element takes the function of expressing negation by itself, the original negative marker becomes optional • Stage 4: the original negative marker becomes extinct

  27. Pragmatic inference (VLPL) • We are going to London [movement [intention [future]]] • We are going to have a party [movement [intention [future]]] • The trees are going to crack… [movement [intention [future]]]

  28. Decategorialization (VLPL) ... or recategorization • Distributional French pas does not form an NP • Inflectional French pas does not take article The books that / *those I lost (VLPL)

  29. Grammaticalization cline Content > Functional Item > Clitic > Inflectional Affix • Unidirectionality • Degrammaticalization?

  30. Unidirectionality • From nasals to nasalization • From contextually determined alternations to non-segmental morphology • From discourse to syntax • From word to clitic to morpheme • From spatial form to abstract case … but not the other way round

  31. Localism In case systems, abstract cases develop from local cases • Agent from Source • Recipient from Goal • Instrument from Path (simplistically) but not vice versa

  32. Sources: guess whence Heine, Kuteva 2002 • Некоторые любопытные источники грамматикализации • фр. chez? • верификатив?

  33. Famous semantic maps:Auwera & Plungian 1998

  34. Famous semantic maps:Bybee, Perkins and Pagliucca 1994 Indirect Evidence ‘be’/’have’ Inference from results RESULTATIVE AORIST/ PRAETERITUM ANTERIOR ‘come’ COMPLETIVE Derivational perfective ‘finish’ directionals

  35. Famous semantic maps:Haspelmath 1999

  36. Famous semantic maps:Haspelmath 1997

More Related