Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'

[Tom Givon]

I think maybe something can be said about the relation between
adaptively-motivated syntax and diachronic change. Adaptive (functional,
communicative) motivation is not simple; it most often involves multiple
factors and competing motivations. The well-known grammaticalization cycle
is just one general case in point: The later stages of
'de-grammaticalization' (see several articles in A. Giacalone-Ramat and P.
Hopper, eds, TSL #37, 1998) reveal the intervention of phonological erosion
which creates irregular, hard-to-learn ('counter-iconic') grammatical
constructions (and morphologies). But there are a gadzillion more-specific
instances in the life cycle of individual syntactic constructions. During
the early phase of functional-extension via functional similarity and thus
'dual use' (say, re-interpreting the purely stative adjectival construction
"The window was broken" as a result-of-action/event, "The window has been
broken (by someone)"), a structure long adapted for one function is now
used to code another, for which it is much less well-adapted (indeed,
communicatively msleading; in this case signalling 'state' but coding
'event-with-de-topicalized-agent'). Only after some subsequent structural
changes do the two functions differentiate structurally ("The window was
broken (by someone)".  But other functional innovations (in addition to
phonological erosion) may intervene, with their own unimpeachable--but
different & often conflicting--adaptive motivation. Thus, for example, the
later rise of the GET-passive in English yielded a structure that came from
a totally different diachronic source (reflexive-of-causative) and initial
functional motivation, but eventually became both functionally and
structurally rather similar to the BE-passive, resulting in considerable
usage variation & confusion.

In all this, diachronic change is very much like biological evolution. In
both, the intial impetus for changes is adaptive but profoundly local. In
both, multiple local factors often conflict (the left hand seldom tells the
right what it is up to). This gives both evolution & diachrony the
unmistakable "tinkered" (as opposed to "engineered") flavor. And the
resulting synchronic sytructures in both reveal, paradoxical, many
counted-adaptive features (a la Rube Goldberg...). But still, the processes
that leads to the rise of such 'counter-iconic' end products--decrepit
conjugation, insane declentions, wild portmanteaux, decptive
morphophonemics, dead relics that retain clear structural presence (the
appendix)--were nevertheless adaptively motivated.

The upshot of all this is that an adaptive approach to language (or
biology) cannot be practiced as a simplistic creed with the mantra "At all
time all synchronic structures must be, transparently, 100% motivated--or
else functionalism is falsified". Rather, it is a long-term and
oft-frustrating research program that strives to understand the incredible
complexity of the process that gives rise to both iconic and counter-iconic
features of the communicative code. This may be fiendishly difficult, but
in attempting to cope with our predicament, we are traveling in excellent
company. Cheers, TG

===========================

Daniel Everett wrote:

> Joan,
>
> Point well-taken. I was not endorsing Michel's article per se and if it
> seemed that I was, that was a mistake on my part. Of course, I need to
> read it before I endorse it. I was saying that in comparing his
> description of it in his letter with Parkvall's comments on it.
>
> My main point is that we should be careful of saying what is in the
> grammar for communicative power and what is merely syntax, e.g. gender,
> perfect tense, etc. because there is a lot of work to do to tell these
> two conceptually distinct issues apart in practice.
>
> Dan
>
> On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 11:02 PM, Joan Bresnan wrote:
>
> >> Though I haven't yet read DeGraff's contribution, it sounds more
> >> plausible
> >> on the surface of things than Parkvall's remarks, though, because it
> >> seems to take syntax more seriously than what I could gather from
> >> Parkvall's quote.
> >>
> >
> > Dan, you really ought to read the references before you comment on
> > them.  I don't wish to make personal remarks about others on this
> > list, but a neutral observer might find DeGraff's Linguistic Typology
> > commentary to be an intemperate rant that crosses the boundaries of
> > academic civility.  "Trying hard to miss the point"--paraphrasing
> > Parkvall--is a very kind way to describe it.
> >
> > Joan
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Daniel L. Everett
> Chair of Phonetics and Phonology
> Department of Linguistics
> The University of Manchester
> Oxford Road
> Manchester, UK M13 9PL
> http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/
> FAX & Department phone: 44-161-275-3187
> Office: 44-161-275-3158
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021209/24e7c030/attachment.htm>