Volume 11, Issue 1

The term Piotrowski-Altmann law refers to a wide range of linguistic phenomena which proceed in the “slow-fast-slow” fashion, i.e. drawing a sigmoid on a graph. They include the replacement of an old morphological form with a new one, lexical borrowing between languages, the growth of a child’s vocabulary, and many others. The paper briefly discusses the history of the law, its current variants and their applications, and lastly science theoretical problems connected with it. It concludes that our law is in fact a group of psycho- and sociological models, whose application to linguistics requires further deliberation.

The relationship between “language change” and “language evolution” has recently become subject to some debate regarding the scope of both concepts. It has been claimed that while the latter used to refer to the language origins in the first place, both terms can now, to a certain extent, be used synonymously. In this paper, I argue that this can partly be explained by parallel developments both in historical linguistics and in the field of language evolution research that have led to a considerable amount of convergence between both fields. Both have adopted usage-based approaches and data-driven methods, which entails similar research questions and similar perspectives on the phenomena under investigation. This has ramifications for current models and theories of language change (or evolution). Two approaches in particular, the concept of complex adaptive systems and construction grammar, have been combined in integrated approaches that seek to explain both language emergence and language change over historical time. I discuss the potential and limitations of this integrated approach, and I argue that there is still some unexplored potential for cross-fertilization.

The present paper discusses language change from an information and systems theoretical point of view, taking on a diachronic perspective. It is argued that human language has to be regarded as a probabilistically organized information system in which synchronizations of linguistic systems of individuals create unstable (dynamic, ever-changing) collective levels (“language systems”). Therefore, probabilistic organization of language processing on an individual level leads – via bottom-up structure – to probabilistic organization of language systems as a whole. If we thus regard linguistic objects like e.g. a Saussurean sign as generally unstable and defined by probability distributions even from a synchronic point of view, we must understand language change (diachronic developments) as probabilistic as well. Therefore, language change in its “classical sense” (a change in linguistic objects) has to be reinterpreted as a change in probability distribution. Nevertheless, the term language change and its meaning then still lack exactness regarding some details; so we have to use this term carefully and be aware of its weaknesses. With a close look at language as an information system with both a synchronic as well as a diachronic dimension, we finally have to admit that language change is a scientific construct serving as a – sometimes quite useful – simplification within the linguistic field.

Using the example of the German language, this contribution discusses different models of a drift between synthetic and analytical construction. As an alternative to existing models, a design that combines different perspectives is presented. Linguistic developments are not viewed as monodirectional or even monocausal, but as polydirectional and polycausal so that the question of the direction and causality of typological changes is answered with the assumption of a complex structure of dependencies. This model of typological change integrates both extra-linguistic and intra-linguistic factors. On the one hand, developments in the cultural environment are made responsible for changes in the linguistic system, since these developments require a different communicative behavior of the members of the language community. On the other hand, the model also takes into account the principle of self-regulation of a linguistic system based on an optimal relationship between communicative effort and communicative result.

This paper deals with constellations in which, as consequences of linguistic interculturality, elements of two or more languages encounter each other and result in something partially or completely new, an – occasionally temporary – “third quality”, namely hybridity. The paper contributes to the meta-discourse and theory formation by questioning the concept, term and content of “linguistic hybridity”. It also submits a proposal for a typology of linguistic-communicative hybridity that consists of the following prototypical main groups, each with several subtypes: (1) language-cultural, (2) semiotic, (3) medial, (4) communicative, (5) systematic, (6) paraverbal and (7) nonverbal hybridity. At last, the paper examines hybridity as an explanatory variable for language change. In conclusion, hybridity is generally a place of cultural production, with special regard to communication and language it is potentially considered as an incubator of linguistic innovation. Hybridity can be seen as the engine and as the result of language change, or language development. It represents an essential factor by which language functions and develops as a complex adaptive system. Hybridity operates as a continuous cycle. By generating innovation, it triggers language change, which in turn, leads to further and new hybridizations. The processuality of hybridity creates diversity, while at the same time it can cause the vanishing of diversity.

In dem vorliegenden Beitrag gehen wir davon aus, dass der informationsbetonten Textsorte Meldung das fraktale Bauprinzip zugrunde liegt. Unter Fraktalität wird die rekursive Selbstähnlichkeit des Objektes verstanden. In der Textsorte Meldung der deutschen und ukrainischen Medienkultur lässt sich die Zweifraktalstruktur identifizieren: Überschrift als Anfangsfraktal ( α ) und Fließtext als Endfraktal ( ω ). Laut der kontrastiven Analyse ist die deutsche Meldung standardisierter und verdichteter als die ukrainische. Im Gegensatz zur deutschen Medienkultur, bei der die Meldung eine verarbeitete Mitteilung diverser Nachrichtenagenturen ist, veröffentlichen die ukrainischen Medien häufig eigene Mitteilungen. In der Mikrostruktur von deutschen und ukrainischen Meldungen sind einige Gemeinsamkeiten anzusehen. Im α -Fraktal dominiert der einfache Satz, durch den die Hauptproposition der Nachricht ausgedrückt wird. Im ω -Fraktal wird die Hauptproposition erweitert und ergänzt, indem es stilistisch neutral durch einfache Sätze und Hypotaxen ausgedrückt wird. In beiden Medienkulturen pflegen Berichterstatter überwiegend indirekte Rede bei der Informationsvermittlung zu verwenden. Im nonverbalen Aspekt weisen die deutsche und ukrainische Meldung viele Gemeinsamkeiten auf. Dies spiegelt die aktuellen Trends im Design von Medienmeldungen in modernen Tageszeitungen wider. Die Zeitungsmeldungen werden üblicherweise am Rande der Zeitungsspalte unter einer allgemeinen typografisch hervorgehobenen Dachzeile als ein Block angegeben.