Tania Kuteva: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 23:26, 17 February 2008

On grammaticalization and complexity

Abstract.

In this talk I will be concerned with one particular aspect of complexity, namely linguistic accretion, or elaborateness of marking (Kuteva and Comrie 2001, Comrie and Kuteva 2005, Kuteva and Comrie 2005, Kuteva, forthc.). There have been several proposals for an explanation of linguistic accretion in the specialized literature already. In the present work, I identify another factor which leads to linguistic accretion, and which has remained largely unnoticed in the literature so far, namely contact-induced grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2005). I account for linguistic accretion in contact-induced grammaticalization in terms of an integrative model of grammaticalization (Kuteva and Heine, forthc).

REFERENCES Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva, 2005. The evolution of grammatical structures and “functional need” explanations. In: Language origins: perspectives on evolution, ed. by Maggie Tallerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kuteva, forthc. “On the ´frills´ of grammaticalization”. In: López-Couso, María José & Elena Seoane (eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Kuteva, Tania and Bernard Comrie 2001. Relativization strategies in Africa. Paper presented at the International Symposium: “Typology of African Languages”, May 21-24, St. Augustin, Germany.

Kuteva, Tania & Bernard Comrie 2005. The typology of relative clause formation in African languages. African Studies, ed. by Erhard Voeltz. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kuteva, Tania and Bernd Heine forthc. An integrative model of grammaticalization.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''What is the relationship between grammaticalization and long-term evolution of language?'''
+'''On grammaticalization and complexity'''
 '''Abstract.'''
-The answer I propose to this question is two-fold. First, I propose that when grammaticalization took place for the first time in conjectural prehistory, its effect was complexification of language: to the lexicon there was a whole new domain, the domain of morphosyntax, added; thus it is justifiable to speak of additive complexity. I call this the Stage of Initial Complexification (Stage-of-IC). Hence, thanks to grammaticalization, the evolution of language at the Stage-of-IC can be viewed as a development along a morphosyntactic complexification trajectory.
+In this talk I will be concerned with one particular aspect of complexity, namely linguistic accretion, or elaborateness of marking (Kuteva and Comrie 2001, Comrie and Kuteva 2005, Kuteva and Comrie 2005, Kuteva, forthc.). There have been several proposals for an explanation of linguistic accretion in the specialized literature already. In the present work, I identify another factor which leads to linguistic accretion, and which has remained largely unnoticed in the literature so far, namely contact-induced grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2005). I account for linguistic accretion in contact-induced grammaticalization in terms of an integrative model of grammaticalization (Kuteva and Heine, forthc).
-Second, in the times after the Stage of Initial Complexification (I call it the Stage-after-IC, or Stage 2) – encompassing that portion of conjectural prehistory which follows Stage 1 as well as the whole of the time of attested history of language – the overall, long-term evolutionary trajectory of morphosyntactic development is very hard to assess, at least given the present state of knowledge. The reason for this is not the fact that at the Stage-after-IC (in that portion of it which constitutes attested history, in particular) in addition to language-internal grammaticalization (i.e. non-contact-related grammaticalization), there is also language-external grammaticalization (i.e. contact-induced grammaticalization), which, as traditionally assumed about contact-induced language change phenomena, should bring about simplification of structure. Contrary to the traditional wisdom, I will argue, both non-contact-related grammaticalization and contact-induced grammaticalization lead to complexification rather than simplification of morphosyntactic structure (cf. Kuteva and Heine forthc. on the “integrative model of grammaticalization”). What makes it hard to determine whether long-term evolution of language involves a constant increase in complexity or not is the existence of common language change processes which may counteract – or at least, may not necessarily enhance – the complexification resulting from grammaticalization, e.g. loss, cyclicity, pidginization/creolization.
+REFERENCES
+Comrie, Bernard & Tania Kuteva, 2005. The evolution of grammatical structures and “functional need” explanations. In: Language origins: perspectives on evolution, ed. by Maggie Tallerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
+ Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
-I formulate four hypotheses about the effect of common processes of language change – grammaticalization included – on the long-term evolution of language at Stage 2 (i.e. the Stage-after-IC), with respect to morphosyntax:
+Kuteva, forthc. “On the ´frills´ of grammaticalization”. In: López-Couso, María José & Elena Seoane (eds.), in collaboration with Teresa Fanego. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives for the twenty-first century (Typological Studies in Language). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
-a) the gains equal the losses (i.e. balance);
-b) the gains are less than the losses (i.e. simplification);
-c) the gains are more than the losses (i.e. complexification); and
-d) chronological variation between (b) and (c), depending on socio-historical factors.
-My tentative proposal is that Hypotheses (a) and (b) are implausible, whereas Hypotheses (c) and (d) are the ones that deserve special attention in future research on language evolution.
+Kuteva, Tania and Bernard Comrie 2001. Relativization strategies in Africa. Paper presented at the International
+Symposium: “Typology of African Languages”, May 21-24, St. Augustin, Germany.
+Kuteva, Tania & Bernard Comrie 2005. The typology of relative clause formation in African languages. African Studies, ed. by Erhard Voeltz. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
+Kuteva, Tania and Bernd Heine forthc. An integrative model of grammaticalization.

Tania Kuteva: Difference between revisions

From Santa Fe Institute Events Wiki

Latest revision as of 23:26, 17 February 2008