Diachronic Typology and Language Change: From States to Processes

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

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 reconstruction • Jakobson on PIE stops • 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. 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)

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

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

8. Frequency and stability

9. 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)

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

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

12. Markedness dynamicized

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

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: • 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)

21. 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?

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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]]]

25. 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)

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

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

28. Famous semantic maps:Auwera & Plungian 1998

29. Famous semantic maps:Haspelmath 1999

30. Famous semantic maps:Haspelmath 1997