Grammatical representations versus productive patterns in change theories
Abstract
In this paper, I discuss differences between representational change (i. e. in formal features and structures involved in grammatical competence) and change in quantitative patterns (i. e. in the quantitative properties of the language system in use), as relevant to my approach to incrementation. My approach differs from the standard variationist sociolinguistic approach because I argue that representational [1] input-divergence [2] along the child learning path contributes to quantitative differences between children and older speakers, most importantly the input speakers. In this way, the Inverted U Model (IUM) for incrementation offers an initial sketch of a linking theory between (a) child developmental findings for competence-related changes over acquisitional time in the individual, and (b) the change-in-progress phenomenon of incrementation which describes how usage rates for innovative variants advance relative to conservative variants in speakers in the community over generational time. Maximize Minimal Means (MMM), this volume similarly attributes a principled, creative role in change to the child-learner, offering a linking theory between (a), and (c), discrete changes in representations between grammars in historical time, grounded in Minimalism.
I’ll also respond to Westergaard’s (this volume) argument that the IUM’s reliance on child overgeneralization conflicts with a set of linguistic phenomena for which directional, child-driven changes have been proposed, namely syntactic changes characterized by economy or simplification. In syntax, relative to common language change pathways (e. g. biclausal>monoclausal reanalyses), children typically acquire the (potentially) innovative grammatical structure earlier than the conservative one as they develop complexity (e. g. they develop from monoclausal>biclausal). It is indeed not clear how these child interim syntactic structures relate to overgeneralization, if at all. Rather, syntactic innovations are typically attributed to economy principles, and syntactic learning is sometimes characterized as conservative, also not obviously related to overgeneralization. I’ll show that neither economy in change nor child conservativity in syntactic development directly undermine the proposed model, as both are concerned with representational changes in grammars, not differences in quantitative patterns and changes-in-progress (the purview of incrementation and the IUM).
Finally I will say a few words on the case study on Norwegian gender-system changes laid-out in Westergaard (this volume). These elicited production data are a valuable contribution to the roles of children in changes-in-progress, and while the data patterns conflict with some aspects of the IUM as proposed, the overall approach of Rodina and Westergaard is in line with a child-learning-centered contribution to the directionality and shape of changes-in-progress.
References
Cournane, A. 2017. In defense of the child innovator. In E. Mathieu & R. Truswell (eds.), Micro-change and Macro-change in diachronic syntax, 10–23. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780198747840.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. & L. Mackenzie. in prep. SocialEyes: Testing age-stratification in child perception.Search in Google Scholar
D’Onofrio, A. 2015. Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(2). 241–256.10.1111/josl.12115Search in Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & T. Roeper. 2016. The acquisition of complements. In J. Lidz, W. Snyder & J. Pater (eds.), The Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.13Search in Google Scholar
Denis, D. et al. 2019. Peaks and arrowheads of vernacular reorganization. Language Variation and Change 31(1). 43–67.10.1017/S095439451900005XSearch in Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. et al. 2005. Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1(1). 23–64.10.1093/oso/9780199828098.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. & A. Cournane. 2016. Themes and variations in the expression of modality. NELS 46(2). 21–42.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & E. L. Newport. 2005. Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development 1(2). 151–195.10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215Search in Google Scholar
Hyams, N. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters, vol. 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-009-4638-5Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change Volume 2: Social factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83. 344–387.10.1353/lan.2007.0082Search in Google Scholar
Lee, N. & A. Cournane. 2019. The journey, not the endstate: Finding innovation in the dynamics of L1A. Talk presented at Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS XXI). Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. & M. Westergaard. 2007. Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5). 396–415.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00023.xSearch in Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511486326Search in Google Scholar
Rodina, Y. & M. Westergaard. 2015. Grammatical gender in Norwegian: Language acquisition and language change. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27(2). 145–187.10.1017/S1470542714000245Search in Google Scholar
Schuler, K. D., C. Yang & E. L. Newport. 2016. Testing the tolerance principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. CogSci 38. 2321–2326.Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780199296699.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2011. Children’s grammatical conservatism: Implications for syntactic theory. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1, 1–20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2017. On the child’s role in syntactic change. In G. Sengupta et al. (eds.), Perspectives on the architecture and acquisition of syntax, 235–242. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.10.1007/978-981-10-4295-9_12Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55.10.2307/414841Search in Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.71Search in Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. 2008. Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues. Lingua 118(12). 1841–1863.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2000. Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change 12(3). 231–250.10.1017/S0954394500123014Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- A developmental view on incrementation in language change
- Computational historical linguistics
- Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change
- Comments
- Children always go beyond the input: The Maximise Minimal Means perspective
- Overgeneralization and change: The role of acquisition in diachrony
- On computational historical linguistics in the 21st century
- Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems
- Some thoughts on the complexity of syntactic complexity
- Are uninterpretable features vulnerable?
- Uninterpretable features in learning and alternative grammars?
- Replies
- Grammatical representations versus productive patterns in change theories
- Model evaluation in computational historical linguistics
- Interpreting (un)interpretability
- Edit Doron (1951–2019)
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- A developmental view on incrementation in language change
- Computational historical linguistics
- Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change
- Comments
- Children always go beyond the input: The Maximise Minimal Means perspective
- Overgeneralization and change: The role of acquisition in diachrony
- On computational historical linguistics in the 21st century
- Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems
- Some thoughts on the complexity of syntactic complexity
- Are uninterpretable features vulnerable?
- Uninterpretable features in learning and alternative grammars?
- Replies
- Grammatical representations versus productive patterns in change theories
- Model evaluation in computational historical linguistics
- Interpreting (un)interpretability
- Edit Doron (1951–2019)
